Athiests misuse First Amendment

Religions > Atheism > Athiests misuse First Amendment

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 1

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	""
Date:	23 Nov 2005 02:45:50 PM
Object:	Athiests misuse First Amendment

http://badgerherald.com/oped/2005/09/16/athiests_misuse_firs.php
Athiests misuse First Amendment
by Darryn Beckstrom
Friday, September 16, 2005
I have a polite request for a handful of lawyers in Madison: please keep
your politics within the confines of your own city. Last week, the
University of Minnesota announced in addition to withdrawing from the
Minnesota Faith/Health Consortium earlier this summer, it has ceased the
creation of courses addressing the relationship between faith and healing
after the Madison-based Freedom from Religion Foundation filed a lawsuit
against the institution in federal court.
This recent action by a group of Madison-bred attorneys affirms the notion
that the interpretation of a “wall of separation” between church and state
is becoming increasingly distorted.
The First Amendment does nothing more than prohibit laws “respecting an
establishment of religion.” Regrettably, many anti-religious organizations
have interpreted this clause — contrary to the U.S. Supreme Court — to read
that no public entity shall mention religion in any form.
The Foundation not only sought the University’s immediate withdrawal from
the Consortium, they also demanded the research institution halt the
development of the Faith/Health Clinical Leadership program. The program,
in conjunction with Luther Seminary and Fairview Health Services, would
have provided clinical courses to graduate students interested in
researching the intersections between faith and healing.
Ironically, the Foundation sued the University before the sequence of
courses was developed and offered to students. With the courses still on
the drawing board, though, the Foundation naively inferred such classes
were endorsing religion. Why would such an organization do this? It’s quite
obvious: when atheists see the word “religion,” they immediately cry foul.
Unfortunately, the University succumbed to the pressures of a few sue-happy
Americans. Instead of dragging the institution through the financial
constraints often present with litigation, the University cowered like a
child facing a schoolyard bully and conceded to the demands of the
Foundation.
If the legal counsel of the University had more gumption to pursue this
matter, they would have realized that both the law and academic freedom
were on their side.
Studying the correlation between faith and healing — as the proposed
courses intended to do — is indeed constitutional. The Foundation, on the
other hand, believes public universities should avoid the discussion of the
“r” word completely. Nonetheless, there is a difference between studying
the role of religion in American life and endorsing a particular religion.
Atheists can’t seem to accept the distinction.
If it had seen the inside of a courtroom, the Foundation’s substandard
legal argument would have been quashed by established case law. To
determine whether the University violated the establishment clause by
involvement in the Consortium and offering of such classes, the federal
court would have applied the test set forth in Lemon v. Kurtzman. If the
Court applied the Lemon test, it would have found the actions of the
University indeed had a secular purpose, they did not have the primary
effect of advancing or inhibiting religion and they did not foster an
excessive government entanglement with religion. Simply put, the
University’s actions were constitutional.
The constitutionality of the courses aside, the organization also
encroaches on academic freedom in a university setting. The Foundation
considers itself a group of “freethinkers.” Unfortunately, these
freethinkers prefer to censor intellectual thought that doesn’t comport to
their ideals. In the end, intellectual diversity has been forced to take a
backseat while atheists continue to force their way to the helm of
curricular control.
An overarching question raised by the recent actions of the Freedom from
Religion Foundation is somewhat obvious: will this litigation ever end? The
establishment clause of the First Amendment is one of the most litigated
provisions of the Constitution. And the Foundation doesn’t seem to be
letting up on the citizens of Minnesota any time soon. The organization is
now attacking Gov. Pawlenty’s proposal to create a Minnesota Council of
Faith-based Initiatives to better assist religious organizations in
providing social services to the citizens in the state.
Atheists and those organizations targeting what they erroneously believe to
be actions of the Religious Right need to realize they have been using the
wrong forum for their assault on religion. They have been using our
nation’s courtrooms to influence nothing more than what amounts to public
policy. Sometimes they find a judge who is sympathetic to their politics,
sometimes they don’t. Nonetheless, the pages of the Constitution should not
be a place to fight hollow legal arguments. The halls of our state
legislatures and Congress would be more appropriate.
The Constitution bars the “establishment of religion,” and studying its
role in American life is hardly “establishing” anything, except for the
right of students to study a question of importance and interest to the
medical community.
Darryn Beckstrom is a doctoral student in the Department of Political
Science and a second-year MPA candidate in the La Follette School of Public
Affairs.
**************************************************************
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: Faith and Healing	24 Nov 2005 03:36:28 PM

wrote:

http://badgerherald.com/oped/2005/09/16/athiests_misuse_firs.php

[...] Last week, the University of Minnesota announced [...] it has ceased the
creation of courses addressing the relationship between faith and healing
after the Madison-based Freedom from Religion Foundation filed a lawsuit
against the institution in federal court. [...]

I have no problem with the cancellation of courses "addressing the
relationship between faith and healing." This is not rational
scientific study. The fact that occasional miraculous recoveries occur
is very, very interesting, but there is no rational reason to believe
it was faith, prayer, or the hand of God that yielded the result.
.

User: "Colin Day"
Title: Re: Faith and Healing	28 Nov 2005 10:42:47 PM

wrote:

buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:

Madison-based? James or Wisconsin?

I would object to calling the recoveries miraculous. Unexplained, yes, but
not miraculous.
Colin Day aa #1500
.

User: "The_Sage"
Title: Re: Athiests misuse First Amendment	24 Nov 2005 04:45:09 AM

Reply to article by:

Date written: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 09:45:50 -0500
MsgID:<l409o1hl0fd9umg2cvbked5mrdodrvdglo@4ax.com>
http://badgerherald.com/oped/2005/09/16/athiests_misuse_firs.php
Athiests misuse First Amendment
by Darryn Beckstrom
Friday, September 16, 2005
The First Amendment does nothing more than prohibit laws “respecting an
establishment of religion.” Regrettably, many anti-religious organizations
have interpreted this clause — contrary to the U.S. Supreme Court — to read
that no public entity shall mention religion in any form.

That is a blatent lie.

Unfortunately, the University succumbed to the pressures of a few sue-happy
Americans. Instead of dragging the institution through the financial
constraints often present with litigation, the University cowered like a
child facing a schoolyard bully and conceded to the demands of the
Foundation.

Why are all of you so afraid of Atheists? Atheists only account for less than 5%
of the entire population, how can they weild such incredible power over your
entire religious organization? They can't. You are just being a sour grape.

If the legal counsel of the University had more gumption to pursue this
matter, they would have realized that both the law and academic freedom
were on their side.

So a very small minority of people fooled the entire country? If that were true,
I would have great respect for Atheists -- they can do things 95% of the rest of
the population cannot do.

Studying the correlation between faith and healing — as the proposed
courses intended to do — is indeed constitutional.

Not even close. The Consortium was designed to promote faith because there was a
correlation between faith and healing, and not to promote the study of the
correlation between faith and healing.

The Foundation, on the
other hand, believes public universities should avoid the discussion of the
“r” word completely. Nonetheless, there is a difference between studying
the role of religion in American life and endorsing a particular religion.
Atheists can’t seem to accept the distinction.

It wasn't Atheists that protested the Faith/Health Consortium, it was the
Freedom from Religion Foundation Inc. You can't seem to accept the distinction.
No one is saying that people shouldn't practice religion, just that no one has a
right to make their religion a public matter. Keep religion in the home and in
the church. Keep religion out of education and politics. Keep in-your-face
religion out of our faces. That is entirely fair.
The Sage
=============================================================
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage
"Careful when you cast your devil out of you lest you cast
out the best thing in you." -Nietzsche
=============================================================
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Athiests misuse First Amendment	24 Nov 2005 02:14:13 PM

The_Sage <The_Sage@msn.com> wrote:

:|>Reply to article by:

:|>Date written: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 09:45:50 -0500
:|>MsgID:<l409o1hl0fd9umg2cvbked5mrdodrvdglo@4ax.com>
:|
:|>http://badgerherald.com/oped/2005/09/16/athiests_misuse_firs.php
:|>Athiests misuse First Amendment
:|
:|>by Darryn Beckstrom
:|>Friday, September 16, 2005
:|
:|>The First Amendment does nothing more than prohibit laws “respecting an
:|>establishment of religion.” Regrettably, many anti-religious organizations
:|>have interpreted this clause — contrary to the U.S. Supreme Court — to read
:|>that no public entity shall mention religion in any form.
:|
:|That is a blatent lie.
:|
:|>Unfortunately, the University succumbed to the pressures of a few sue-happy
:|>Americans. Instead of dragging the institution through the financial
:|>constraints often present with litigation, the University cowered like a
:|>child facing a schoolyard bully and conceded to the demands of the
:|>Foundation.
:|
:|Why are all of you so afraid of Atheists? Atheists only account for less than 5%
:|of the entire population, how can they weild such incredible power over your
:|entire religious organization? They can't. You are just being a sour grape.

Who is this you you are refferng to ?
The author of the arricle probably doesn't read this newsgroup or even
UseNet.
**************************************************************
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: "The_Sage"
Title: Re: Athiests misuse First Amendment	26 Nov 2005 06:38:27 AM

Reply to article by:

Date written: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:14:13 -0500
MsgID:<pjibo11jndvi74gd8hgsojclanai1e3od5@4ax.com>

:|>http://badgerherald.com/oped/2005/09/16/athiests_misuse_firs.php
:|>Athiests misuse First Amendment
:|>by Darryn Beckstrom
:|>Friday, September 16, 2005
:|>The First Amendment does nothing more than prohibit laws “respecting an
:|>establishment of religion.” Regrettably, many anti-religious organizations
:|>have interpreted this clause — contrary to the U.S. Supreme Court — to read
:|>that no public entity shall mention religion in any form.
:|That is a blatent lie.
:|>Unfortunately, the University succumbed to the pressures of a few sue-happy
:|>Americans. Instead of dragging the institution through the financial
:|>constraints often present with litigation, the University cowered like a
:|>child facing a schoolyard bully and conceded to the demands of the
:|>Foundation.
:|Why are all of you so afraid of Atheists? Atheists only account for less than 5%
:|of the entire population, how can they weild such incredible power over your
:|entire religious organization? They can't. You are just being a sour grape.

Who is this you you are refferng to?

That author of the post I was replying to...who else could it be?

The author of the arricle probably doesn't read this newsgroup or even
UseNet.

"Probably" means you really don't know. Let's not talk about what you don't know
but about what you do know.

**************************************************************
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]

None of this nonsense proves your claim that many anti-religious organizations
have interpreted separation of church and State to read that no public entity
shall mention religion in any form. That was your blatent lie.

***************************************************************
. . . 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)
. . .
****************************************************************

Bull. The founding fathers of the USA believe that blacks were not even human
and women where even lower than blacks. Let's thank God the Consitution isn't
interpreted exactly how it was originally intended to mean.
The Sage
=============================================================
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage
"Careful when you cast your devil out of you lest you cast
out the best thing in you." -Nietzsche
=============================================================
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Athiests misuse First Amendment	28 Nov 2005 11:14:02 AM

The_Sage <The_Sage@msn.com> wrote:

:|>Reply to article by:

:|>Date written: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:14:13 -0500
:|>MsgID:<pjibo11jndvi74gd8hgsojclanai1e3od5@4ax.com>
:|
:|>>:|>http://badgerherald.com/oped/2005/09/16/athiests_misuse_firs.php
:|>>:|>Athiests misuse First Amendment
:|
:|>>:|>by Darryn Beckstrom
:|>>:|>Friday, September 16, 2005
:|
:|>>:|>The First Amendment does nothing more than prohibit laws “respecting an
:|>>:|>establishment of religion.” Regrettably, many anti-religious organizations
:|>>:|>have interpreted this clause — contrary to the U.S. Supreme Court — to read
:|>>:|>that no public entity shall mention religion in any form.
:|
:|>>:|That is a blatent lie.
:|
:|>>:|>Unfortunately, the University succumbed to the pressures of a few sue-happy
:|>>:|>Americans. Instead of dragging the institution through the financial
:|>>:|>constraints often present with litigation, the University cowered like a
:|>>:|>child facing a schoolyard bully and conceded to the demands of the
:|>>:|>Foundation.
:|
:|>>:|Why are all of you so afraid of Atheists? Atheists only account for less than 5%
:|>>:|of the entire population, how can they weild such incredible power over your
:|>>:|entire religious organization? They can't. You are just being a sour grape.
:|
:|>Who is this you you are refferng to?
:|
:|That author of the post I was replying to...who else could it be?
:|
:|>The author of the arricle probably doesn't read this newsgroup or even
:|>UseNet.
:|
:|"Probably" means you really don't know. Let's not talk about what you don't know
:|but about what you do know.

My mym you got embarrassed and now tryig to savwe face.
I will go out on a limb and say the author of ther article does not read
these newsgroups.
There, happy how?
However, you can actually enter your comments after the article and maybe
she does read that
http://badgerherald.com/oped/2005/09/16/athiests_misuse_firs.php
Athiests misuse First Amendment
by Darryn Beckstrom
Friday, September 16, 2005
At the very bottom of the article there is a section called
Feedback
and you can reply there.
see how helpful I am
**************************************************************
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: "The_Sage"
Title: Re: Athiests misuse First Amendment	29 Nov 2005 01:40:34 AM

Reply to article by:

Date written: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 06:14:02 -0500
MsgID:<gjplo113mjd46an94efsh4cmq1b1k3hcj9@4ax.com>

:|>>:|>http://badgerherald.com/oped/2005/09/16/athiests_misuse_firs.php
:|>>:|>Athiests misuse First Amendment
:|>>:|>by Darryn Beckstrom
:|>>:|>Friday, September 16, 2005
:|>>:|>The First Amendment does nothing more than prohibit laws “respecting an
:|>>:|>establishment of religion.” Regrettably, many anti-religious organizations
:|>>:|>have interpreted this clause — contrary to the U.S. Supreme Court — to read
:|>>:|>that no public entity shall mention religion in any form.
:|>>:|That is a blatent lie.
:|>>:|>Unfortunately, the University succumbed to the pressures of a few sue-happy
:|>>:|>Americans. Instead of dragging the institution through the financial
:|>>:|>constraints often present with litigation, the University cowered like a
:|>>:|>child facing a schoolyard bully and conceded to the demands of the
:|>>:|>Foundation.
:|>>:|Why are all of you so afraid of Atheists? Atheists only account for less than 5%
:|>>:|of the entire population, how can they weild such incredible power over your
:|>>:|entire religious organization? They can't. You are just being a sour grape.
:|>Who is this you you are refferng to?
:|That author of the post I was replying to...who else could it be?
:|>The author of the arricle probably doesn't read this newsgroup or even
:|>UseNet.
:|"Probably" means you really don't know. Let's not talk about what you don't know
:|but about what you do know.

My mym you got embarrassed and now tryig to savwe face.

My mym, you are wrong again.

I will go out on a limb and say the author of ther article does not read
these newsgroups.

Who cares? All that matters is you are wrong. Again.

There, happy how?

Yep.

However, you can actually enter your comments after the article and maybe
she does read that

I would rather enter my comments here since I am responding to your post and not
hers.

http://badgerherald.com/oped/2005/09/16/athiests_misuse_firs.php
Athiests misuse First Amendment
by Darryn Beckstrom
Friday, September 16, 2005
At the very bottom of the article there is a section called
Feedback and you can reply there.
see how helpful I am

I can see how you are cowardly trying avoiding to have to post an intelligent
reply on a topic that you are incapable of defending on your own.

Been there; done that; now what? It's all opinionated crap instead of logic and
facts. Case in point...

User: "sue_doe_cy_ants"
Title: sage, is it?	27 Nov 2005 04:33:43 PM

The_Sage wrote:

Reply to article by:

Date written: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:14:13 -0500
MsgID:<pjibo11jndvi74gd8hgsojclanai1e3od5@4ax.com>

http://badgerherald.com/oped/2005/09/16/athiests_misuse_firs.php
Athiests misuse First Amendment

by Darryn Beckstrom
Friday, September 16, 2005

The First Amendment does nothing more than prohibit laws "respecting an
establishment of religion." Regrettably, many anti-religious organizat=

ions

have interpreted this clause - contrary to the U.S. Supreme Court - to=

read

that no public entity shall mention religion in any form.

That is a blatent lie.
entire religious organization? They can't.
You are just being a sour grape.

Who is this you you are refferng to?

That author of the post I was replying to
...who else could it be?

The author of the arricle probably doesn't
read this newsgroup or even UseNet.

"Probably" means you really don't know.
Let's not talk about what you don't know
but about what you do know.

not
just any sage
is it, but
THE SAGE?
Today's Clue:
although i have to go out on a limb here,
and not just stick to what i know,
there is an infinitesimal probability
that the originator of this thread,
buckeye.
is also the author of this piece posted.
maybe if you ceased interjecting commentary,
it would be easier to notice the tag at the post's top
=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=
=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF
http://badgerherald.com/oped/2005/09/16/athiests_misuse_firs.php
=D8=D8=D8=D8 Athiests misuse First Amendment
=D8=D8=D8=D8 by Darryn Beckstrom
=D8=D8=D8=D8 Friday, September 16, 2005
_____________________________________________
although i've never actually met buckeye,
nor engaged in social posting,
i doubt buckeyer's real name is Darryn Beckstrom.
If you wish to address the author,
maybe a more efficacious methodology
would be to visit the url listed above,
and message using the form on the webpage.
--
i am confused by your choice of a nick.
is it animal sage as in
brayknee and asstoot;
or plant sage as in
salviating at the bell;
or maybe an admixture of the two:
as in vegelant?
.

User: "Gray Shockley"
Title: Re: Athiests misuse First Amendment	23 Nov 2005 08:42:29 PM

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 08:45:50 -0600,

wrote:

It could be an interesting study but not with a co-sponsor that is
best labeled as a "special interest group".
I've seen a couple of "miraculous cures". One of them was a
16-year-old boy whose parents had taken him to three doctors in
three cities. On all three, there was no referral; all were
"independent" and none of the doctors was aware of any other
diagnoses.
The kid had less than two months to live and the cancer was
inoperative and wide spread.
A year later, two of the doctors claimed they had misdiagnosed the
disease; the third - quite a bit older than the other two - simply
called it a "miracle" and not the first one he had ever seen.
I met the kid about two years after he was "cured' (up ta Putney,
Vermont at a "coffee house" (coffee, tea and folk music - 1966).
There was no doubt in the kid's mind that he had cured himself
because of his faith.
Re-read my .sig line.
Gray Shockley
--------------------------
Now my own suspicion is that the
Universe is not only queerer than
we suppose, but queerer than
we can suppose.
- J. B. S. Haldane

This recent action by a group of Madison-bred attorneys affirms the notion
that the interpretation of a “wall of separation” between church and state
is becoming increasingly distorted.

The First Amendment does nothing more than prohibit laws “respecting an
establishment of religion.” Regrettably, many anti-religious organizations
have interpreted this clause — contrary to the U.S. Supreme Court — to read
that no public entity shall mention religion in any form.

The Foundation not only sought the University’s immediate withdrawal from
the Consortium, they also demanded the research institution halt the
development of the Faith/Health Clinical Leadership program. The program,
in conjunction with Luther Seminary and Fairview Health Services, would
have provided clinical courses to graduate students interested in
researching the intersections between faith and healing.

Ironically, the Foundation sued the University before the sequence of
courses was developed and offered to students. With the courses still on
the drawing board, though, the Foundation naively inferred such classes
were endorsing religion. Why would such an organization do this? It’s quite
obvious: when atheists see the word “religion,” they immediately cry foul.

Unfortunately, the University succumbed to the pressures of a few sue-happy
Americans. Instead of dragging the institution through the financial
constraints often present with litigation, the University cowered like a
child facing a schoolyard bully and conceded to the demands of the
Foundation.

If the legal counsel of the University had more gumption to pursue this
matter, they would have realized that both the law and academic freedom
were on their side.

Studying the correlation between faith and healing — as the proposed
courses intended to do — is indeed constitutional. The Foundation, on the
other hand, believes public universities should avoid the discussion of the
“r” word completely. Nonetheless, there is a difference between studying
the role of religion in American life and endorsing a particular religion.

Atheists can’t seem to accept the distinction.

If it had seen the inside of a courtroom, the Foundation’s substandard
legal argument would have been quashed by established case law. To
determine whether the University violated the establishment clause by
involvement in the Consortium and offering of such classes, the federal
court would have applied the test set forth in Lemon v. Kurtzman. If the
Court applied the Lemon test, it would have found the actions of the
University indeed had a secular purpose, they did not have the primary
effect of advancing or inhibiting religion and they did not foster an
excessive government entanglement with religion. Simply put, the
University’s actions were constitutional.

The constitutionality of the courses aside, the organization also
encroaches on academic freedom in a university setting. The Foundation
considers itself a group of “freethinkers.” Unfortunately, these
freethinkers prefer to censor intellectual thought that doesn’t comport to
their ideals. In the end, intellectual diversity has been forced to take a
backseat while atheists continue to force their way to the helm of
curricular control.

An overarching question raised by the recent actions of the Freedom from
Religion Foundation is somewhat obvious: will this litigation ever end? The
establishment clause of the First Amendment is one of the most litigated
provisions of the Constitution. And the Foundation doesn’t seem to be
letting up on the citizens of Minnesota any time soon. The organization is
now attacking Gov. Pawlenty’s proposal to create a Minnesota Council of
Faith-based Initiatives to better assist religious organizations in
providing social services to the citizens in the state.

Atheists and those organizations targeting what they erroneously believe to
be actions of the Religious Right need to realize they have been using the
wrong forum for their assault on religion. They have been using our
nation’s courtrooms to influence nothing more than what amounts to public
policy. Sometimes they find a judge who is sympathetic to their politics,
sometimes they don’t. Nonetheless, the pages of the Constitution should not
be a place to fight hollow legal arguments. The halls of our state
legislatures and Congress would be more appropriate.

The Constitution bars the “establishment of religion,” and studying its
role in American life is hardly “establishing” anything, except for the
right of students to study a question of importance and interest to the
medical community.

Darryn Beckstrom is a doctoral student in the Department of Political
Science and a second-year MPA candidate in the La Follette School of Public
Affairs.

**************************************************************
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: Athiests misuse First Amendment	24 Nov 2005 02:02:25 PM

Gray Shockley <grayshockley@gmail.com> wrote:

:|On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 08:45:50 -0600,

I agree totally
Which is why I find the religious side which claims to know the truth, to
know what is, to be bull and the other side that claims to know the
truth, to know what isn't to be bull too.
Until such a time, if ever, mankind knows all there is to know, no one
knows for certain what is and what isn't.
I don't see any difference between the believer who blasts the non believer
or the non believer who blasts the believer
**************************************************************
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: Athiests misuse First Amendment; discussion fails 10th Amendment test	24 Nov 2005 05:39:23 AM

alt.education removed.
buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:

Agreed. Separationists and atheists are evidently brainwashed to think
that the mere existance of religious-themed curriculum in state
educational institutions means that their personal federal rights have
been violated. But they ignore that before the 14th A. was made that
many states took the initiative to balance their 10th A. protected
sovereign power to legislate religious laws with personal federal
rights without needing a 14th A. to order them to do so. Sadly,
activist Justices are now using the 14th Amendment as an excuse to
unconstitutionally rob the States of their 10th A. protected sovereign
powers.
"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."

<snipped for brevity>
.

User: "David Jensen"
Title: Re: Athiests misuse First Amendment; discussion fails 10th Amendment test	24 Nov 2005 04:29:54 PM

On 23 Nov 2005 21:39:23 -0800, in alt.atheism
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
<1132810763.357051.27580@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:

alt.education removed.

buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:

As you note, that was before the 14th Amendment

Sadly,
activist Justices are now using the 14th Amendment as an excuse to
unconstitutionally rob the States of their 10th A. protected sovereign
powers.

It appears that you don't want the 14th Amendment to mean anything.

"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."

Correct. The 14th Amendment prohibited the states from doing some things
that they had been allowed to do before. Ignoring the First Amendment is
one power that the states no longer have.

User: "fred"
Title: Re: Athiests misuse First Amendment; discussion fails 10th Amendment test	24 Nov 2005 08:10:35 PM

David Jensen wrote:

On 23 Nov 2005 21:39:23 -0800, in alt.atheism
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
<1132810763.357051.27580@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:

alt.education removed.

buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:

As you note, that was before the 14th Amendment

Sadly,
activist Justices are now using the 14th Amendment as an excuse to
unconstitutionally rob the States of their 10th A. protected sovereign
powers.

It appears that you don't want the 14th Amendment to mean anything.

Given what I've been posting, your above statement is an outright lie.
The basic reading skills, common sense interpretation of the 14th was
necessary because some States evidently regarded personal federal
rights as optional. As I've stated many times before, many states were
balancing their 10th protected sovereign powers with personal federal
rights on their own initiative. However, other States were using their
powers to abridge the personal federal rights of US citizens. The 14th
made it mandatory for all the States to respect personal federal
rights. So while the 14th meant nothing for the States that were
already respecting personal federal rights, the States that were
ignoring personal federal rights had to change their ways.

"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."

Correct. The 14th Amendment prohibited the states from doing some things
that they had been allowed to do before. Ignoring the First Amendment is
one power that the states no longer have.

No that's not correct. You are evidently being crushed by the jaws of
your own anti-religious expression reality distortion field. :^(
Unlike the 1st Amendment which explicitly prohibits Congress from
making certain kinds of laws, religious laws for example, the 14th
Amendment doesn't prohibit the States from making any particular kinds
of laws. So your above words "from doing some things that they had
been allowed to do before" is forcing the implication that the 1st
Amendment's prohibitions on certain powers of the federal government,
particularly concerning religion, were also made applicable to the
States.
The 14th only puts a general limit on all the laws that the States can
make. The States can still use their 10th protected sovereign power to
legislate religion. This is because the 14th neither prohibits
specific kinds of State laws, again, like the 1st specifically
prohibits certain kinds of federal laws, or says anything about the
10th A. protected sovereign powers of the States. The 14th simply says
that no law, religious or otherwise, can abridge personal federal
rights. So the States are now required to be like those States who
balanced 10th protected sovereign powers with personal federal rights
on their own initiative before the 14th was made.
Again, regardless that separationists and atheists have been
brainwashed to believe the absurdity that the mere existance of state
initiated religious issues is an automatic violation of their personal
federal rights, many States were successfully balancing their 10th
protected sovereign powers to legislate religion with personal federal
rights before the 14th was made anyway.
Indeed, the States still have the authority (10th), regardless if
corrupt, activist judges tell them they don't, to authorize public
schools to lead non-mandatory (14th) classroom discussions about the
pros and cons of evolution, creationism and irreducible complexity, for
example.

User: ""
Title: Re: Athiests misuse First Amendment; discussion fails 10th Amendment test	25 Nov 2005 01:48:11 PM

On 24 Nov 2005 12:10:35 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

As I've stated many times before, many states were
balancing their 10th protected sovereign powers with personal federal
rights on their own initiative.

States have no "sovereign powers", Freddie
You can "state it" a thousand times and it cannot make
it true.
.

User: "fred"
Title: Re: Athiests misuse First Amendment; discussion fails 10th Amendment test	26 Nov 2005 12:59:20 AM

wrote:

On 24 Nov 2005 12:10:35 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

As I've stated many times before, many states were
balancing their 10th protected sovereign powers with personal federal
rights on their own initiative.

States have no "sovereign powers", Freddie

You can "state it" a thousand times and it cannot make
it true.

Don't tell that to ME! Tell it to Justice Jackson who wrote the
following in Opelika:
"Conflicts in the exercise of rights arise and the conflicting forces
seek adjustments in the courts, as do these parties, claiming on the
one side the freedom of religion, speech and the press, guaranteed by
the Fourteenth Amendment, and on the other the right to employ the
sovereign power explicitly reserved to the State by the Tenth Amendment
to ensure orderly living without which constitutional guarantees of
civil liberties would be a mockery." -- Jones v. City of Opelika 1942
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Athiests misuse First Amendment; discussion fails 10th Amendment test	26 Nov 2005 03:47:24 PM

On 25 Nov 2005 16:59:20 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

Knickkkers@WhattaIdiot.com wrote:

On 24 Nov 2005 12:10:35 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

As I've stated many times before, many states were
balancing their 10th protected sovereign powers with personal federal
rights on their own initiative.

States have no "sovereign powers", Freddie

You can "state it" a thousand times and it cannot make
it true.

Don't tell that to ME! Tell it to Justice Jackson who wrote the
following in Opelika:

"Conflicts in the exercise of rights arise and the conflicting forces
seek adjustments in the courts, as do these parties, claiming on the
one side the freedom of religion, speech and the press, guaranteed by
the Fourteenth Amendment, and on the other the right to employ the
sovereign power explicitly reserved to the State by the Tenth Amendment
to ensure orderly living without which constitutional guarantees of
civil liberties would be a mockery." -- Jones v. City of Opelika 1942

"Soveriegn power" is a generalized philosophy---not a
statement that states are beyone federal authority.
You're attempting to cherry pick generalizations and
snippets from court cases and maintain the meaning of a
word used is "literally" applicable.
States are "sovereign" only as a general principle.
Some of those "principles" are self-evident by general
constitutional reading. Others are not.
Conflicts in law dealing with the authority and
"soverignty" of states are case-by-case. Some cases
are resolved by application of case law, others may, or
may not, establish new doctrine
States cannot be said to be "soveriegn" in a strict
sense, because Federal authority (except where case law
has determined otherwise) is superior to States.
The issue YOU'RE aruging has already been dealt
with---and you and your loony judge lost.
.

User: "fred"
Title: Re: Athiests misuse First Amendment; discussion fails 10th Amendment test	25 Nov 2005 07:36:21 PM

wrote:

On 24 Nov 2005 12:10:35 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

As I've stated many times before, many states were
balancing their 10th protected sovereign powers with personal federal
rights on their own initiative.

States have no "sovereign powers", Freddie

You can "state it" a thousand times and it cannot make
it true.

Where are you coming from? :^(
Not only does the 10th reasonably indicate that the States have powers
that the federal government cannot have which makes such powers
sovereign, but Justice Reed wrote about the 10th Amendment sovereign
powers of the States:
"Conflicts in the exercise of rights arise and the conflicting forces
seek adjustments in the courts, as do these parties, claiming on the
one side the freedom of religion, speech and the press, guaranteed by
the Fourteenth Amendment, and on the other the right to employ the
sovereign power explicitly reserved to the State by the Tenth Amendment
to ensure orderly living without which constitutional guarantees of
civil liberties would be a mockery." -- Jones v. City of Opelika 1942
The bottom line is that anti-religious expression activist Justices
along with people like you who don't give a damn what the Constitution
says in the first place, simply cannot afford for the American people
to start asking questions about the 10th Amendment protected sovereign
powers of the States.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Athiests misuse First Amendment; discussion fails 10th Amendment test	25 Nov 2005 08:45:35 PM

On 25 Nov 2005 11:36:21 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

Knickkkers@WhattaIdiot.com wrote:

On 24 Nov 2005 12:10:35 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

As I've stated many times before, many states were
balancing their 10th protected sovereign powers with personal federal
rights on their own initiative.

States have no "sovereign powers", Freddie

You can "state it" a thousand times and it cannot make
it true.

Where are you coming from? :^(

Not only does the 10th reasonably indicate that the States have powers
that the federal government cannot have which makes such powers
sovereign,

Any entity that does not control all power isn't
"sovereign", Freddy
At one time, "some" early interpretations used that
term, albeit even loosely then.
A state is subservient to a FEDERAL constitution,
effectively making it a "creature of the federal
government"
The limitations on the federal government aren't put
there by states (althought the constitution was
ratified---"state by state" )---they're there because
of a FEDERAL constitution that spells some of the
limitations and granted powers to each entity.
What you're trying to do (stupidly, I might add) is to
use the word "soveriegn" as IF it were a characteristic
of the condition of the power of an individual state in
relation to the federal government---then "read" that
portion of the constitution" and make that "reading"
fits your cockamanie "theory".
I (or anyone else, for that matter) shouldn't have to
point out to you that you're LOSING (actually never
have won anything related to this silliness of yours)
your "theory" and if nothing else a national person
Like "judge" Moore got his ***** kicked over it.
If you were a mule, Freddie, someone would be heading
to the barn to get a bigger board to whack you with.
.

User: "Mickey"
Title: Re: Athiests misuse First Amendment; discussion fails 10th Amendmenttest	25 Nov 2005 10:18:12 PM

wrote:

On 25 Nov 2005 11:36:21 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

wrote:

On 24 Nov 2005 12:10:35 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

As I've stated many times before, many states were
balancing their 10th protected sovereign powers with personal federal
rights on their own initiative.

States have no "sovereign powers", Freddie

You can "state it" a thousand times and it cannot make
it true.

Where are you coming from? :^(

Not only does the 10th reasonably indicate that the States have powers
that the federal government cannot have which makes such powers
sovereign,

This is, in its own way, just as wrong as much of Fred's spew.
Sovereignty resides in the people. By consent of the people, certain
powers are delegated (assigned or loaned, if you will) to the various
branches of government. That includes powers specifically granted by the
Constitution and by its amendement to the three branches of the Federal
government and all other powers which may be assumed by the states
through consent of its residents. All powers not delegated either
federally or to the individual state reside in the individual. The
Federal government is only sovereign in the respect that it represents
our collective assertion of sovereignty relative other, foreign governments.
The 14th amendment does not make the federal government more sovereign
or the states less sovereign, since neither is really sovereign with
respect to this issue. The issue at question seem to be what does the
14th amendment mean exactly. At face value, it reserves to the citizenry
certain rights which had been infringed upon or might be infringed upon
by the individual states. Beyond this, we are into interpretations of
the court as to what those rights of citizenship might include.
I can understand why Fred questions how the 14th amendments extends the
applicability of the establishment clause to the states. The
establishment and free exercise clauses only limit what Congress
(federal) may do. It does not confer, reinforce, or outline a right,
like freedom of speech. It merely constrains what Congress may do. So
absent something in the Constitution or its Amendments that outlines a
freedom from religion beyond those regarding oaths and such, there is no
right of citizenship conferred which the 14th amendment might protect or
reserve. Anything else is a creation of the courts.

The limitations on the federal government aren't put
there by states (althought the constitution was
ratified---"state by state" )---they're there because
of a FEDERAL constitution that spells some of the
limitations and granted powers to each entity.

What you're trying to do (stupidly, I might add) is to
use the word "soveriegn" as IF it were a characteristic
of the condition of the power of an individual state in
relation to the federal government---then "read" that
portion of the constitution" and make that "reading"
fits your cockamanie "theory".

I (or anyone else, for that matter) shouldn't have to
point out to you that you're LOSING (actually never
have won anything related to this silliness of yours)
your "theory" and if nothing else a national person
Like "judge" Moore got his ***** kicked over it.

If you were a mule, Freddie, someone would be heading
to the barn to get a bigger board to whack you with.

User: "fred"
Title: Re: Athiests misuse First Amendment; discussion fails 10th Amendment test	26 Nov 2005 09:23:09 PM

Mickey wrote:

Knickkkers@WhattaIdiot.com wrote:

A state is subservient to a FEDERAL constitution,
effectively making it a "creature of the federal
government"

This is, in its own way, just as wrong as much of Fred's spew.

I defend my assertions with references to the 1st, 10th and 14th
Amendments, along with extracts from Everson, Opelika, and Cantwell,
quotes by Jefferson and Lincoln. SHOW ME where any of my assertions
are wrong. Given that you cannot show me where I'm wrong, then thank
you for your unsubstantiated opinion about the points that I've been
making.

Sovereignty resides in the people. By consent of the people, certain
powers are delegated (assigned or loaned, if you will) to the various
branches of government. That includes powers specifically granted by the
Constitution and by its amendement to the three branches of the Federal
government and all other powers which may be assumed by the states
through consent of its residents. All powers not delegated either
federally or to the individual state reside in the individual. The
Federal government is only sovereign in the respect that it represents
our collective assertion of sovereignty relative other, foreign governments.

The 14th amendment does not make the federal government more sovereign
or the states less sovereign, since neither is really sovereign with
respect to this issue. The issue at question seem to be what does the
14th amendment mean exactly. At face value, it reserves to the citizenry
certain rights which had been infringed upon or might be infringed upon
by the individual states. Beyond this, we are into interpretations of
the court as to what those rights of citizenship might include.

I can understand why Fred questions how the 14th amendments extends the
applicability of the establishment clause to the states. The
establishment and free exercise clauses only limit what Congress
(federal) may do. It does not confer, reinforce, or outline a right,
like freedom of speech. It merely constrains what Congress may do. So
absent something in the Constitution or its Amendments that outlines a
freedom from religion beyond those regarding oaths and such, there is no
right of citizenship conferred which the 14th amendment might protect or
reserve. Anything else is a creation of the courts.

I'm glad you brough up the 14th Amendment. Consider the following
gaffe from the Cantwell opinion:
"The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states
as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws." -- Cantwell v. State of
Connecticut 1940.
Consider that since the States authorized the 14th Amendment in the
first place that the above extract can be reworded in this way:
"The state legislatures have rendered the state legislatures as
incompetent as Congress to enact such laws."
Given the basic meaning of the Court's statement about the 14th
Amendment and the state legislatures in the Cantwell opinion, the
bottom line is that the Cantwell statement about the 14th Amendment is
another example of the Court's anti-10th Amendment folly. This is
because the Court's broad interpretation of the 14th unwittingly
asserted that the States essentially willingly violated their 5th
Amendment rights against self-incrimination with the 14th Amendment,
something that I'm sure that the States were not even thinking about
when they made the 14th. Also, can you imagine the States voluntarily
giving up their 10th Amendment protected powers?

The limitations on the federal government aren't put
there by states (althought the constitution was
ratified---"state by state" )---they're there because

<snipped for brevity>
.

User: "Martin Holterman"
Title: Re: Athiests misuse First Amendment; discussion fails 10th Amendmenttest	26 Nov 2005 11:02:44 PM

L.S.,
I don't want to reply to most of what you posted, because I missed the
beginning of this discussion, and, besides, it all seems quite tedious.
I'd just like to point out that states don't have 5th amendment rights,
or rights under any other amendment other than the 10th. Just a thought.
Furthermore, I don't see why the 14th amendment could not amend the
10th. Is it only the main body of the constitution that can be amended?
That would be an interesting rule. (Cf. 21st amendment.)
Yours,
Martin Holterman
fred wrote:

Mickey wrote:

Knickkkers@WhattaIdiot.com wrote:

A state is subservient to a FEDERAL constitution,
effectively making it a "creature of the federal
government"

This is, in its own way, just as wrong as much of Fred's spew.

I'm glad you brough up the 14th Amendment. Consider the following
gaffe from the Cantwell opinion:

"The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states
as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws." -- Cantwell v. State of
Connecticut 1940.

Consider that since the States authorized the 14th Amendment in the
first place that the above extract can be reworded in this way:

"The state legislatures have rendered the state legislatures as
incompetent as Congress to enact such laws."

Given the basic meaning of the Court's statement about the 14th
Amendment and the state legislatures in the Cantwell opinion, the
bottom line is that the Cantwell statement about the 14th Amendment is
another example of the Court's anti-10th Amendment folly. This is
because the Court's broad interpretation of the 14th unwittingly
asserted that the States essentially willingly violated their 5th
Amendment rights against self-incrimination with the 14th Amendment,
something that I'm sure that the States were not even thinking about
when they made the 14th. Also, can you imagine the States voluntarily
giving up their 10th Amendment protected powers?

The limitations on the federal government aren't put
there by states (althought the constitution was
ratified---"state by state" )---they're there because

User: ""
Title: Re: Athiests misuse First Amendment; discussion fails 10th Amendment test	26 Nov 2005 01:13:35 AM

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 22:18:12 GMT, Mickey
<mickey_and_edith@nomorephishsbcglobal.net> wrote:

Knickkkers@WhattaIdiot.com wrote:

This is, in its own way, just as wrong as much of Fred's spew.

Sovereignty resides in the people.

This is more happy horseshit misdirection. Of course
the "power resides with the people". The "people"
approved the constitution. That's the philosophical
underpinning of our structure.
The issue is some dumb ***** trying to argue theories
of how that structure "Should be" based on insipidly
stupid (and long settled) "who's the boss" in America.
There hasn't been a substantial move to try and use the
long settled question of who is "supreme"---States or
the Federal governent
States, particularily the southern states had power
taken away (by force of arms in 1865) and by the USSC
and Federal authority a century later. The shift from
State power to federal power (via the courts) because
of abuses, was necessary. Every thing from Child labor,
to old age poverty, to horrible working conditions,
starvation wages, civil rights abuses, etc etc, started
gravitating to the federal rank when states were
literally screwing their people.
The push lately is to "restore" those racist,
homophobic, bigoted, greedy, states back to power to
start doing the same things again. It's morons like
Fred (etal) that drop their pants and say vaseline or
not, pour it to me.

By consent of the people,

Never claimed different. Those "powers" and the
interpretation of them has been on-going for 200 years.
Freddie is trying to advance an already dead theory
because he figures Judge Moore has a "RIGHT" to read
the constitution as HE sees fit.

The 14th amendment does not make the federal government more sovereign
or the states less sovereign, since neither is really sovereign with
respect to this issue.

Don't see the reasoning in that when, for 200+ years
states refused to "do" certain things and the Federal
authorities forced them. If the states are
"soveriegn", how in ***** can they do that?

The issue at question seem to be what does the
14th amendment mean exactly.

There is no "issue at question". The application of
the Due process clause of the 14th amendment, by
Judicial interpretation forced the states to comply.

I can understand why Fred questions how the 14th amendments extends the
applicability of the establishment clause to the states.

I can see why Fred questions just about everything
connected to the constitution. If you predicate your
theories on "strict" construction, and try to
unilaterally "read" according to some misguided
beliefs, you simply cannot arrive at cogent
conclusions. Freddie tries to make them sound
logical---but his underpinning of the "soveriegnty" on
states is ludicrous.

The
establishment and free exercise clauses only limit what Congress
(federal) may do.

Nonsense. The courts have made it CLEAR that any state
that tries to alter what ALL citizens are entitled to
(by various case law) is forbidden. That includes a
state government "establishing" religion.
States have a right to enact civil laws (relating to
marriage--contract law), but not to discriminate if
those laws are in conflict with federal law.
States cannot (now) refuse to provide legal assistance
to an accused (something not accorded until the USSC
"intepreted" that due process should be accorded to all
citizens. (Gideon v Wainwright)
If your "theory" is correct, that is unconstitutional.
However, The reading of the 14 due process clause is
now the law of the land.

User: "Mickey"
Title: Re: Athiests misuse First Amendment; discussion fails 10th Amendmenttest	26 Nov 2005 06:55:01 AM

wrote:

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 22:18:12 GMT, Mickey
<mickey_and_edith@nomorephishsbcglobal.net> wrote:

wrote:

This is, in its own way, just as wrong as much of Fred's spew.

Sovereignty resides in the people.

This is more happy horseshit misdirection. Of course
the "power resides with the people". The "people"
approved the constitution. That's the philosophical
underpinning of our structure.

The issue is some dumb ***** trying to argue theories
of how that structure "Should be" based on insipidly
stupid (and long settled) "who's the boss" in America.

There hasn't been a substantial move to try and use the
long settled question of who is "supreme"---States or
the Federal governent

States, particularily the southern states had power
taken away (by force of arms in 1865) and by the USSC
and Federal authority a century later. The shift from
State power to federal power (via the courts) because
of abuses, was necessary. Every thing from Child labor,
to old age poverty, to horrible working conditions,
starvation wages, civil rights abuses, etc etc, started
gravitating to the federal rank when states were
literally screwing their people.

The push lately is to "restore" those racist,
homophobic, bigoted, greedy, states back to power to
start doing the same things again. It's morons like
Fred (etal) that drop their pants and say vaseline or
not, pour it to me.

By consent of the people,

The 14th amendment does not make the federal government more sovereign
or the states less sovereign, since neither is really sovereign with
respect to this issue.

Don't see the reasoning in that when, for 200+ years
states refused to "do" certain t