| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
27 Dec 2005 05:27:45 AM |
| Object: |
Breaching the wall |
Breaching the wall
http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051226/NEWS/512260313/1038
Rutland Herald - Rutland,VT,USA
Breaching the wall
December 26, 2005
L ast Tuesday could be seen as a judicial saw-off in the debate over
religion in American public life. On the one hand, a Pennsylvania judge not
only ruled against teaching intelligent design in high school classrooms,
he essentially laughed the case out of court in a lengthy and wide-ranging
decision.
On the other hand, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of
Appeals in Cincinnati ruled that a Kentucky courthouse can display the Ten
Commandments alongside other historical documents.
The judge who wrote the latter opinion was equally vocal in his critique of
the ACLU's case opposing the display of the Commandments as the
Pennsylvania judge was of ID.
Despite the fact that the appeals judge, Richard Suhrheinrich, reversed the
U.S. Supreme Court's decisions on similar cases in nearby counties and also
critiqued the high court's patchwork of rulings on the matter as confusing,
it's not clear whether the case would make it back to the Supreme Court,
even if the ACLU appeals.
In all the cases, the judges looked at the intent of the defendants'
actions. In Pennsylvania, the ID supporters had spoken of their desire to
get some form of creationism into the classroom. In the Supreme Court
cases, the forbidden displays of the Ten Commandments had originally gone
up with the stated intention of glorifying God, complete with a pastor on
hand to bless the effort.
The job of government is neither to glorify nor deny God.
The 6th Circuit decision looked at the latest case both for its intent and
content. The display in question included not only the Commandments, but
the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence, among several other
documents, all displayed with equal prominence. The judges determined that
the display was not designed to glorify God but to inform the public of the
history and basis for American laws, so it was appropriate for a public
building.
But Suhrheinrich's decision discarded out of hand one of the plaintiff's
core arguments, on the separation of church and state.
"This extra-constitutional construct has grown tiresome," he wrote. "The
First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and
state."
On that point, Suhrheinrich disagrees with both Thomas Jefferson and the
Supreme Court.
President Jefferson coined the phrase in a letter in to the Danbury (Conn.)
Baptist Association in 1802.
The Supreme Court repeated Jefferson's language in 1947, in the case
Everson v. Board of Education: "The First Amendment has erected a wall
between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We
could not approve the slightest breach."
The Danbury Baptists, the framers of the Constitution, and specifically
Jefferson, were in agreement on the underlying principles: First, that a
person's right to express his religious belief stems from his relationship
with his God and not from an act of the government — hence the term
"unalienable rights." And second: That government shall not impose
religious beliefs on its citizens.
The Everson decision recognizes this when it warns against the "slightest
breach" of the wall.
Suhrheinrich's language challenges that clear warning from 60 years ago.
Judges Alice Batchelder and Walter Rice joined Suhrheinrich in the
decision, though Rice concurred only in the result, not the written
opinion, which included the attack on the separation of church and state.
The underlying decision, that a display that includes the Ten Commandments
is not necessarily a government affirmation of a given faith, is a good
one. The First Amendment does not forbid religion, only government's
imposition of it.
But the idea that we should toss out decades of rulings attempting to
define the uneasy coexistence of church and state, plus the express
language of Thomas Jefferson discussing the Establishment Clause, is a poor
one.
**************************************************************
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: "Darryl" |
|
| Title: Re: Breaching the wall |
28 Dec 2005 09:18:38 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Breaching the wall
http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051226/NEWS/512260313/1038
Rutland Herald - Rutland,VT,USA
On the other hand, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of
Appeals in Cincinnati ruled that a Kentucky courthouse can display the Ten
Commandments alongside other historical documents.
<snip>
But the idea that we should toss out decades of rulings attempting to
define the uneasy coexistence of church and state, plus the express
language of Thomas Jefferson discussing the Establishment Clause, is a poor
one.
Of course they ruled in favor of Jesus: what part of "Cinncinati" &
"Kentucky" was unclear? The only parts of law school they recollect
clearly are the historical precedents regarding bestiality & incest.
They firmly believe in rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, &
rendering to God that which is God's. And since God created
everything, it's all His, hand it over!
Not even a parting gift for Caesar.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Breaching the wall; discussion fails 10th A. test |
18 Jan 2006 12:15:03 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Breaching the wall
http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=3D/20051226/NEWS/5=
12260313/1038
Rutland Herald - Rutland,VT,USA
Breaching the wall
December 26, 2005
L ast Tuesday could be seen as a judicial saw-off in the debate over
religion in American public life. On the one hand, a Pennsylvania judge n=
ot
only ruled against teaching intelligent design in high school classrooms,
he essentially laughed the case out of court in a lengthy and wide-ranging
decision.
On the other hand, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of
Appeals in Cincinnati ruled that a Kentucky courthouse can display the Ten
Commandments alongside other historical documents.
The judge who wrote the latter opinion was equally vocal in his critique =
of
the ACLU's case opposing the display of the Commandments as the
Pennsylvania judge was of ID.
Despite the fact that the appeals judge, Richard Suhrheinrich, reversed t=
he
U.S. Supreme Court's decisions on similar cases in nearby counties and al=
so
critiqued the high court's patchwork of rulings on the matter as confusin=
g,
it's not clear whether the case would make it back to the Supreme Court,
even if the ACLU appeals.
In all the cases, the judges looked at the intent of the defendants'
actions. In Pennsylvania, the ID supporters had spoken of their desire to
get some form of creationism into the classroom. In the Supreme Court
cases, the forbidden displays of the Ten Commandments had originally gone
up with the stated intention of glorifying God, complete with a pastor on
hand to bless the effort.
The job of government is neither to glorify nor deny God.
The 6th Circuit decision looked at the latest case both for its intent and
content. The display in question included not only the Commandments, but
the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence, among several oth=
er
documents, all displayed with equal prominence. The judges determined that
the display was not designed to glorify God but to inform the public of t=
he
history and basis for American laws, so it was appropriate for a public
building.
But Suhrheinrich's decision discarded out of hand one of the plaintiff's
core arguments, on the separation of church and state.
"This extra-constitutional construct has grown tiresome," he wrote. "The
First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and
state."
On that point, Suhrheinrich disagrees with both Thomas Jefferson and the
Supreme Court.
President Jefferson coined the phrase in a letter in to the Danbury (Conn=
..)
Baptist Association in 1802.
The Supreme Court repeated Jefferson's language in 1947, in the case
Everson v. Board of Education: "The First Amendment has erected a wall
between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We
could not approve the slightest breach."
The Danbury Baptists, the framers of the Constitution, and specifically
Jefferson, were in agreement on the underlying principles: First, that a
person's right to express his religious belief stems from his relationship
with his God and not from an act of the government - hence the term
"unalienable rights." And second: That government shall not impose
religious beliefs on its citizens.
The Everson decision recognizes this when it warns against the "slightest
breach" of the wall.
Suhrheinrich's language challenges that clear warning from 60 years ago.
Judges Alice Batchelder and Walter Rice joined Suhrheinrich in the
decision, though Rice concurred only in the result, not the written
opinion, which included the attack on the separation of church and state.
The underlying decision, that a display that includes the Ten Commandments
is not necessarily a government affirmation of a given faith, is a good
one. The First Amendment does not forbid religion, only government's
imposition of it.
But the idea that we should toss out decades of rulings attempting to
define the uneasy coexistence of church and state, plus the express
language of Thomas Jefferson discussing the Establishment Clause, is a po=
or
one.
The above discussion fails the 10th Amendment test:
"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."
When the 1st and 10th Amendments are considered together, it is
reasonable to conclude that the 10th reserved the power to legislate
religion to the States since the 1st explicitly prohibited this power
only to Congress (federal government; aka United States). Church-state
separation discussions which fail to mention the 10th are based on the
Court's scandalous interpretation of the establishment clause in the
Everson opinion:
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at
least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a
church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all
religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor
influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his
will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No
person can be punished for entertain- [330 U.S. 1, 16] ing or
professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or
non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to
support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be
called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion.
Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly,
participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and
vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment
of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between
Church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page
164." -- Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing TP. 1947.
**************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS =B7 Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why =
"a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisne=
r,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Young" |
|
| Title: Re: Breaching the wall; discussion fails 10th A. test |
19 Jan 2006 06:21:10 PM |
|
|
Fred, are you saying the states could set up theocracies and force people to
go to church and take away their right to a job if they don't fall in line?
Then why would the framers be so concerned about congress?
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137608103.058946.22770@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
buckeyeelo@nospam.net wrote:
Breaching the wall
http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051226/NEWS/512260313/1038
Rutland Herald - Rutland,VT,USA
Breaching the wall
December 26, 2005
L ast Tuesday could be seen as a judicial saw-off in the debate over
religion in American public life. On the one hand, a Pennsylvania judge
not
only ruled against teaching intelligent design in high school classrooms,
he essentially laughed the case out of court in a lengthy and wide-ranging
decision.
On the other hand, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of
Appeals in Cincinnati ruled that a Kentucky courthouse can display the Ten
Commandments alongside other historical documents.
The judge who wrote the latter opinion was equally vocal in his critique
of
the ACLU's case opposing the display of the Commandments as the
Pennsylvania judge was of ID.
Despite the fact that the appeals judge, Richard Suhrheinrich, reversed
the
U.S. Supreme Court's decisions on similar cases in nearby counties and
also
critiqued the high court's patchwork of rulings on the matter as
confusing,
it's not clear whether the case would make it back to the Supreme Court,
even if the ACLU appeals.
In all the cases, the judges looked at the intent of the defendants'
actions. In Pennsylvania, the ID supporters had spoken of their desire to
get some form of creationism into the classroom. In the Supreme Court
cases, the forbidden displays of the Ten Commandments had originally gone
up with the stated intention of glorifying God, complete with a pastor on
hand to bless the effort.
The job of government is neither to glorify nor deny God.
The 6th Circuit decision looked at the latest case both for its intent and
content. The display in question included not only the Commandments, but
the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence, among several
other
documents, all displayed with equal prominence. The judges determined that
the display was not designed to glorify God but to inform the public of
the
history and basis for American laws, so it was appropriate for a public
building.
But Suhrheinrich's decision discarded out of hand one of the plaintiff's
core arguments, on the separation of church and state.
"This extra-constitutional construct has grown tiresome," he wrote. "The
First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and
state."
On that point, Suhrheinrich disagrees with both Thomas Jefferson and the
Supreme Court.
President Jefferson coined the phrase in a letter in to the Danbury
(Conn.)
Baptist Association in 1802.
The Supreme Court repeated Jefferson's language in 1947, in the case
Everson v. Board of Education: "The First Amendment has erected a wall
between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We
could not approve the slightest breach."
The Danbury Baptists, the framers of the Constitution, and specifically
Jefferson, were in agreement on the underlying principles: First, that a
person's right to express his religious belief stems from his relationship
with his God and not from an act of the government - hence the term
"unalienable rights." And second: That government shall not impose
religious beliefs on its citizens.
The Everson decision recognizes this when it warns against the "slightest
breach" of the wall.
Suhrheinrich's language challenges that clear warning from 60 years ago.
Judges Alice Batchelder and Walter Rice joined Suhrheinrich in the
decision, though Rice concurred only in the result, not the written
opinion, which included the attack on the separation of church and state.
The underlying decision, that a display that includes the Ten Commandments
is not necessarily a government affirmation of a given faith, is a good
one. The First Amendment does not forbid religion, only government's
imposition of it.
But the idea that we should toss out decades of rulings attempting to
define the uneasy coexistence of church and state, plus the express
language of Thomas Jefferson discussing the Establishment Clause, is a
poor
one.
The above discussion fails the 10th Amendment test:
"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."
When the 1st and 10th Amendments are considered together, it is
reasonable to conclude that the 10th reserved the power to legislate
religion to the States since the 1st explicitly prohibited this power
only to Congress (federal government; aka United States). Church-state
separation discussions which fail to mention the 10th are based on the
Court's scandalous interpretation of the establishment clause in the
Everson opinion:
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at
least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a
church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all
religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor
influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his
will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No
person can be punished for entertain- [330 U.S. 1, 16] ing or
professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or
non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to
support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be
called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion.
Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly,
participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and
vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment
of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between
Church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page
164." -- Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing TP. 1947.
**************************************************************
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: Breaching the wall; discussion fails 10th A. test |
21 Jan 2006 03:52:50 PM |
|
|
Ron Young wrote:
Fred, are you saying the states could set up theocracies and force people=
to
go to church and take away their right to a job if they don't fall in lin=
e?
Then why would the framers be so concerned about congress?
The States did have such power before they established the federal
government and its Constitution. After the Constitution was ratified,
many states respected personal federal rights and balanced their 10th
A=2E protected sovereign powers with personal federal rights on their own
initiative without needing a 14th A. to tell them to do so. However,
some states evidently used the 10th A. as an excuse to abridge personal
federal rights which culminated in the Civil War.
The post-Civil War 14th A. was an explicit constitutional "read my
lips" for those states that had regarded personal federal rights as an
"option". The problem is that separationist factions managed to seize
the politically correct interpretation 14th as an opportunity to rob
the States of their power to legislate religion, a power that they
regarded as inherently evil in the hands of government. But they
ignore that such power can be used to cultivate religious expression.
The States have the constitutional power (10th) to authorize public
schools to lead non-mandatory (14th) classroom discussions on the pros
and cons of evolution, creationism and irreducible complexity, for
example, regardless if atheists, separationists, secular judges and the
liberal media are now misleading the States to believe that such things
are unconstitutional.
Regarding their concern about Congress, the Founding Fathers didn't
want a national religion. This is partly because it wasn't unheard of
for a given religious "faith" to try to pirate government power to use
as a weapon against a differing religious faith. So something like the
14th A., the honest interpretation of the 14th anyway, should have been
in the BOR from the start. Unfortunately, a politically correct
interpretation of the 14th is now being used to unconstitutionally
stifle religious expression.
"One of the amendments to the Constitution... expressly declares that
'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press,' thereby guarding in the same sentence and
under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the
press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary
which covers the others." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky
Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:382
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137608103.058946.22770@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
buckeyeelo@nospam.net wrote:
Breaching the wall
http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=3D/20051226/NEWS=
/512260313/1038
Rutland Herald - Rutland,VT,USA
Breaching the wall
December 26, 2005
L ast Tuesday could be seen as a judicial saw-off in the debate over
religion in American public life. On the one hand, a Pennsylvania judge
not
only ruled against teaching intelligent design in high school classroom=
s,
he essentially laughed the case out of court in a lengthy and wide-rang=
ing
decision.
On the other hand, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of
Appeals in Cincinnati ruled that a Kentucky courthouse can display the =
Ten
Commandments alongside other historical documents.
The judge who wrote the latter opinion was equally vocal in his critique
of
the ACLU's case opposing the display of the Commandments as the
Pennsylvania judge was of ID.
Despite the fact that the appeals judge, Richard Suhrheinrich, reversed
the
U.S. Supreme Court's decisions on similar cases in nearby counties and
also
critiqued the high court's patchwork of rulings on the matter as
confusing,
it's not clear whether the case would make it back to the Supreme Court,
even if the ACLU appeals.
In all the cases, the judges looked at the intent of the defendants'
actions. In Pennsylvania, the ID supporters had spoken of their desire =
to
get some form of creationism into the classroom. In the Supreme Court
cases, the forbidden displays of the Ten Commandments had originally go=
ne
up with the stated intention of glorifying God, complete with a pastor =
on
hand to bless the effort.
The job of government is neither to glorify nor deny God.
The 6th Circuit decision looked at the latest case both for its intent =
and
content. The display in question included not only the Commandments, but
the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence, among several
other
documents, all displayed with equal prominence. The judges determined t=
hat
the display was not designed to glorify God but to inform the public of
the
history and basis for American laws, so it was appropriate for a public
building.
But Suhrheinrich's decision discarded out of hand one of the plaintiff's
core arguments, on the separation of church and state.
"This extra-constitutional construct has grown tiresome," he wrote. "The
First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and
state."
On that point, Suhrheinrich disagrees with both Thomas Jefferson and the
Supreme Court.
President Jefferson coined the phrase in a letter in to the Danbury
(Conn.)
Baptist Association in 1802.
The Supreme Court repeated Jefferson's language in 1947, in the case
Everson v. Board of Education: "The First Amendment has erected a wall
between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. =
We
could not approve the slightest breach."
The Danbury Baptists, the framers of the Constitution, and specifically
Jefferson, were in agreement on the underlying principles: First, that a
person's right to express his religious belief stems from his relations=
hip
with his God and not from an act of the government - hence the term
"unalienable rights." And second: That government shall not impose
religious beliefs on its citizens.
The Everson decision recognizes this when it warns against the "slighte=
st
breach" of the wall.
Suhrheinrich's language challenges that clear warning from 60 years ago.
Judges Alice Batchelder and Walter Rice joined Suhrheinrich in the
decision, though Rice concurred only in the result, not the written
opinion, which included the attack on the separation of church and stat=
e=2E
The underlying decision, that a display that includes the Ten Commandme=
nts
is not necessarily a government affirmation of a given faith, is a good
one. The First Amendment does not forbid religion, only government's
imposition of it.
But the idea that we should toss out decades of rulings attempting to
define the uneasy coexistence of church and state, plus the express
language of Thomas Jefferson discussing the Establishment Clause, is a
poor
one.
The above discussion fails the 10th Amendment test:
"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."
When the 1st and 10th Amendments are considered together, it is
reasonable to conclude that the 10th reserved the power to legislate
religion to the States since the 1st explicitly prohibited this power
only to Congress (federal government; aka United States). Church-state
separation discussions which fail to mention the 10th are based on the
Court's scandalous interpretation of the establishment clause in the
Everson opinion:
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at
least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a
church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all
religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor
influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his
will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No
person can be punished for entertain- [330 U.S. 1, 16] ing or
professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or
non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to
support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be
called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion.
Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly,
participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and
vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment
of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between
Church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page
164." -- Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing TP. 1947.
**************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation =
of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS =B7 Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members fr=
om
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Wor=
ds
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is 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: "Lamb of God" |
|
| Title: May Jesus Bless CNN |
18 Jan 2006 01:32:32 PM |
|
|
I was just watching CNN a little while ago (sort of the
"light" version of our beloved Fox News) and they
correctly pointed out that John McCain has long been
at the forefront of congressional lobbying reform.
Well, not *That* long. And no doubt that the Democrats
<spit> <spit> can't get their minds off of all those
scandals involving special-interest money that McCain
has been involved in. But, thank our Lord above that
our second "news" network, CNN, had the good sense
to pretend that none of it ever happened.
Like, well, like that whole "Keating Five" scandal that
McCain was knee deep in, back in the late 1980s. You
see, back then, in exchange for a whole lot of money
(McCain's share was "Officially" $112,000), McCain
and four other Senators managed to hold off federal
regulators from taking over Keating's "Lincoln Savings
& Loan" for two whole years. In the end, helped
significantly by McCain's well compensated efforts,
Keating's savings & loan cost the U.S. taxpayers
$2.6 billion.
"Unofficially," Keating & McCain's relationship (and
Keating's money going into McCain's campaign
coffers) began MUCH earlier, and represented a great
deal more than $112,000.
Why I say this is because those pesky Democrats are
sure to point out that McCain, after getting caught, made
a big deal out of "giving away" Keating's $112,000,
pretending that it was the only money he took from the
man in exchange for looking out for his interests.
And, being Democrats, they'll no doubt point out the fact
that McCain's financial relationship with Keating was
never limited to campaign contributions in exchange for
special favors. McCain's wife & father-in-law, for example,
were brought into a Keating real estate deal that netted
them an undisclosed profit "Between $100,000 and $1
million." It wasn't just McCain's campaign chest that
enjoyed Keating's money, it was his household income.
Damn Democrats!
More recently, as those damn Democrats will point
out, McCain made a laughing stock out of himself by
claiming to be a "Reformer" during the 2000 election.
This was after it was noted that many of his top
Presidential campaign contributors were corporations
with a whole lot of "special interests" in legislation
that was before the Senate committee that McCain
chairs. Anyhow, making lemonaide out of lemons,
McCain agreed that his corporate "favors" (like
flying between campaign stops in "borrowed"
corporate jets) was bad, and he would never do it
again. Yup. He, McCain, was going to champion
the cause of the little guy, turning his back on
corporate influence.
Then he turned right around and did it again.
Right after denouncing his very own actions, and
casting himself as the great reformer, McCain
was not only back to old tricks, flying across
America in "borrowed" corporate jets, but planning
a fundraiser with all those Washington lobbiests
he pretended to have nothing to do with.
And that was in the midst of a Presidential campaign,
with all eyes on him. Even in the spotlight, the man
was so closely tied to special interest money &
lobbiest that he could pry himself away. Even after
RUNNING on the idea that he had pried himself
away, the man was still selling himself to the
highest special-interest bidder.
McCain is not a "moderate." McCain is not an
"Independent" Republican. McCain is one of us,
a loyal servant of the Religious Reich. Thanks to
the efforts of John McCain, his smoke & mirrors,
millions of Americans now mistakenly believe that
it is illegal for our government to torture prisoners.
And now, thanks to his efforts, millions of Americans
are going to mistakenly believe that our congress has
been reformed.
God bless John McCain, for without him we couldn't
legally torture people, and we could continue to
corrupt our government officials with mountains of
cash.
In His name,
Lamb of God
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "michael hersch" |
|
| Title: Re: Breaching the wall |
18 Jan 2006 08:47:52 AM |
|
|
wrote:
The underlying decision, that a display that includes the Ten
Commandments is not necessarily a government affirmation of a given
faith, is a good one.
How is this not an affirmation?
--
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Breaching the wall |
27 Dec 2005 09:36:30 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 06:27:45 -0500, wrote:
Breaching the wall
http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051226/NEWS/512260313/1038
Rutland Herald - Rutland,VT,USA
Breaching the wall
December 26, 2005
L ast Tuesday could be seen as a judicial saw-off in the debate over
religion in American public life. On the one hand, a Pennsylvania judge not
only ruled against teaching intelligent design in high school classrooms,
he essentially laughed the case out of court in a lengthy and wide-ranging
decision.
On the other hand, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of
Appeals in Cincinnati ruled that a Kentucky courthouse can display the Ten
Commandments alongside other historical documents.
The judge who wrote the latter opinion was equally vocal in his critique of
the ACLU's case opposing the display of the Commandments as the
Pennsylvania judge was of ID.
And he was wrong. If he cannot abide by the First Amendment he is
unfit to be a judge.
Despite the fact that the appeals judge, Richard Suhrheinrich, reversed the
U.S. Supreme Court's decisions on similar cases in nearby counties and also
critiqued the high court's patchwork of rulings on the matter as confusing,
it's not clear whether the case would make it back to the Supreme Court,
even if the ACLU appeals.
In all the cases, the judges looked at the intent of the defendants'
actions. In Pennsylvania, the ID supporters had spoken of their desire to
get some form of creationism into the classroom. In the Supreme Court
cases, the forbidden displays of the Ten Commandments had originally gone
up with the stated intention of glorifying God, complete with a pastor on
hand to bless the effort.
The job of government is neither to glorify nor deny God.
Or Zeus, or any of the thousands of others.
The 6th Circuit decision looked at the latest case both for its intent and
content. The display in question included not only the Commandments, but
the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence, among several other
documents, all displayed with equal prominence. The judges determined that
the display was not designed to glorify God but to inform the public of the
history and basis for American laws, so it was appropriate for a public
building.
And they were wrong because the ten commandments are not the basis for
American laws. If he said that, he was lying. Which again makes him
unfit to be a judge.
The government has no business telling people what god to worship.
Hint: read them for yourself.
But Suhrheinrich's decision discarded out of hand one of the plaintiff's
core arguments, on the separation of church and state.
"This extra-constitutional construct has grown tiresome," he wrote. "The
First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and
state."
Yes it does. That's merely shorthand for the Establishment clause.
On that point, Suhrheinrich disagrees with both Thomas Jefferson and the
Supreme Court.
President Jefferson coined the phrase in a letter in to the Danbury (Conn.)
Baptist Association in 1802.
It is an explanation of the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court repeated Jefferson's language in 1947, in the case
Everson v. Board of Education: "The First Amendment has erected a wall
between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We
could not approve the slightest breach."
And they were obeying the Constitution.
Agents of the government cannot push religion. Whether it is theirs or
any other.
The Danbury Baptists, the framers of the Constitution, and specifically
Jefferson, were in agreement on the underlying principles: First, that a
person's right to express his religious belief stems from his relationship
with his God and not from an act of the government — hence the term
"unalienable rights." And second: That government shall not impose
religious beliefs on its citizens.
Learn the difference between a person acing as an individual and as an
agent of the government.
The Everson decision recognizes this when it warns against the "slightest
breach" of the wall.
Suhrheinrich's language challenges that clear warning from 60 years ago.
Judges Alice Batchelder and Walter Rice joined Suhrheinrich in the
decision, though Rice concurred only in the result, not the written
opinion, which included the attack on the separation of church and state.
The underlying decision, that a display that includes the Ten Commandments
is not necessarily a government affirmation of a given faith, is a good
one. The First Amendment does not forbid religion, only government's
imposition of it.
Only if they display all the other equivalents from all the other
religions.
But the idea that we should toss out decades of rulings attempting to
define the uneasy coexistence of church and state, plus the express
language of Thomas Jefferson discussing the Establishment Clause, is a poor
one.
**************************************************************
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
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
