| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
13 Dec 2005 07:20:48 AM |
| Object: |
Church, State And Alito |
Church, State And Alito
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20051212/church_state_and_alito.php
[excerpt]
TomPaine.com - Washington,D.C.,USA
Susan Jacoby is the author of Freethinkers: A History of American
Secularism. This essay is adapted from an article in the December issue of
Mother Jones magazine.
When the Supreme Court, in one of its most important decisions this year,
ordered two Kentucky counties to dismantle conspicuous courthouse displays
of the Ten Commandments, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia chastised the
court majority with the novel argument that the Constitution permits
"disregard of polytheists and believers in unconcerned deities, just as it
permits the disregard of devout atheists" (McCreary County v. ACLU of
Kentucky ).
The first question the Senate Judiciary Committee should ask Supreme Court
nominee Samuel A. Alito when his confirmation hearings begin in January is
whether he agrees with Scalia's absurd argument. Scalia ignores the fact
that the Constitution has nothing whatever to say about God, gods or any
form of religious belief or nonbelief—apart from its prohibition of
religious tests for public office and the First Amendment's familiar
declaration that Congress "shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
If Alito does support Scalia’s view—or if he dodges the question—liberal
and libertarian senators should vote against him and save the breath they
will otherwise waste in an effort to bait the nominee into revealing his
views on abortion, the teaching of evolution in public schools and other
faith-related issues likely to wend their way to the court. If a judge does
not have the basic facts of American history straight, he cannot be trusted
to approach any issue with an open mind.
**************************************************************
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: Church, State And Alito; article fails 10th Amendment test, vague constitutional reference |
13 Dec 2005 12:59:52 PM |
|
|
alt.education removed.
buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
Church, State And Alito
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20051212/church_state_and_alito.php
[excerpt]
TomPaine.com - Washington,D.C.,USA
Susan Jacoby is the author of Freethinkers: A History of American
Secularism. This essay is adapted from an article in the December issue =
of
Mother Jones magazine.
When the Supreme Court, in one of its most important decisions this year,
ordered two Kentucky counties to dismantle conspicuous courthouse displays
of the Ten Commandments, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia chastised the
court majority with the novel argument that the Constitution permits
"disregard of polytheists and believers in unconcerned deities, just as it
permits the disregard of devout atheists" (McCreary County v. ACLU of
Kentucky ).
The first question the Senate Judiciary Committee should ask Supreme Court
nominee Samuel A. Alito when his confirmation hearings begin in January is
whether he agrees with Scalia's absurd argument. Scalia ignores the fact
that the Constitution has nothing whatever to say about God, gods or any
form of religious belief or nonbelief-apart from its prohibition of
religious tests for public office and the First Amendment's familiar
declaration that Congress "shall make no law respecting an establishment =
of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
If Alito does support Scalia's view-or if he dodges the question-liberal
and libertarian senators should vote against him and save the breath they
will otherwise waste in an effort to bait the nominee into revealing his
views on abortion, the teaching of evolution in public schools and other
faith-related issues likely to wend their way to the court. If a judge do=
es
not have the basic facts of American history straight, he cannot be trust=
ed
to approach any issue with an open mind.
The above article 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: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Church, State And Alito; article fails 10th Amendment test, vague constitutional reference |
19 Dec 2005 01:55:22 PM |
|
|
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
:|The above article 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.
Radicals in Robes (insignt into fred )
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/c361b42ef2cf861d?hl=en&
Your shorter link is: http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q3225275C
******************************************************************************************
Evidence that shoots down just about every bit of fred's propaganda
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/290a32cf157dec89?hl=en&
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R2651235C
Topics covered in the above that shoot downs fred's propaganda:
Differentiating the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses
*************************************************************************
James Madison on Separation of Church and State
Direct references to separation to be found in the writings of James
Madison
**************************************************************************
What legal standing did the Kentucky Resolutions have?
Hint: none!!!!!!!!
***********************************************************************
Meet another theocrat Meet Alan L. Keyes
Home site
------------------------------------
Religious Liberty as defined by him (alan Keyes)
------------------------------------
Alan Keyes / Alan Dershowitz
Does Organized Religion Hold Answers to the Problems of the 21st Century?
Debate, September 27, 2000
-------------------------------------
Alan Keyes vs
On the establishment of religion: What the Constitution really says
August 26, 2003
-------------------------------------------
Alans Keyes Positions on Particular Issues
***************************************************************************
Comments by Bob LeChevalier (alt.education guy fred wants to avoid)
****************************************************************************
ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE:, EVERSON & FOOTNOTES TO EVERSON
****************************************************************************
some commentary by Adenoid-Hin
Christ sake fred
"Essays" aren't law.
Citizens are afforded equal protection of law.
States cannot address constitutional questions that affect ALL
citizens and "interpretations" other than the USSC are bogus.
Government (state, local, federal) cannot set up, endorse, promote,
pander to, wink at, or in any way favor religious stupidity as policy.
Whether "Jefferson said" so or not, the interpretaton by the USSC (the
ONLY entity allowed to do so) has established that doctrine
generations ago.
Offering "essays", "writings", or other non-relevant, extraneous crap
won't alter the fact.
***********************************************************
The Nineteenth Century Supreme Court and “Republican Protestantism”
************************************************************
The Tenth Amendment was altered so that it really isn't as clear as many
people seem to think
(1) THE TENTH AMENDMENT
(2) THE BILL OF RIGHTS & THE TENTH AMENDMENT,
(3) THERE HAVE BEEN ATTEMPTS TO UNDERMINE WHAT THE FOUNDERS PASSED BY
ADDING THE WORD EXPRESSLY TO THE TENTH AMENDMENT: THE BATTLE OVER THE TENTH
AMENDMENT: OPENING A SECOND FRONT
************************************************************
Amend. To improve. To change for the better by
removing defects or faults. To change, correct,
revise. See Amendment.
Amendment. To change or modify for the better.
To alter by modification, deletion, or addition.
SOURCE: Black's Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition Centennial Edition
(1891-1991) West Publishing (1991) p 52
********************************************************
I said it was modified, not revoked. The 1st reads, "Congress shall
make no law ...". The 14th reads "No State shall make ... any law ..."
The 14th modifies the 1st to effectively read, "Congress and the
States shall make no law ..."
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 16:55:12 -0500
From: Josh Rosenbluth to fred
*****************************************************
The Williamsburg Charter, 1988
A Reaffirmation of the First Amendment
********************************************************************
Fourteenth Amendment, Selective Incorporation
***************************************************************
The following list shows the provisions in the Bill of Rights that have
been incorporated via the 14th Amendment:
[list snipped]
*****************************************************************
JEFFERSON DIDN'T CREATE CHURCH STATE SEPARAITON
However, Jefferson didn't create church state separation:
The principle of church state separation was embodied in the unamended
constitution long before Jefferson wrote a word to the Danbury Baptist
Assoc.
Study Guide: Separation of Church and State - Indepth
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd0.htm
That honor belongs far more to James Madison
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.education/msg/f337c95be318d68b?hl=en&
Your shorter link is: http://makeashorterlink.com/?F2021275C
*******************************************************************************************
Everson v. Bd of Ed defined the Establishment Clasue.
Here are the footnotes that the court used to pen the definition:
FOOTNOTES TO EVERSON v. BD OF ED.
http://snurl.com/2pro
**************************************************************
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: Church, State And Alito; article fails 10th Amendment test, vague constitutional reference |
13 Dec 2005 02:52:45 PM |
|
|
On 13 Dec 2005 10:59:52 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
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
States cannot take away what the federal constitution
guarantees, Freddie.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
