| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
03 Dec 2005 07:03:08 AM |
| Object: |
Faithful called to shore up wall of separation |
Faithful called to shore up wall of separation
http://www.baptiststandard.com/postnuke/index.php?module=htmlpages&func=display&pid=4280
[excerpt]
Dallas Baptist Standard - Dallas,TX,USA
Faithful called to shore up wall of separation
By Marv Knox
Editor
Although some Americans want to knock down the "wall of separation" between
church and state, people of faith who understand their heritage must resist
those efforts, U.S. Rep. Chet Edwards told participants at the T.B. Maston
Christian Ethics Awards banquet.
Edwards received the 2005 Maston Award for his stalwart defense of
religious liberty, announced Jimmy Allen, chairman of the T.B. Maston
Foundation. The organization's namesake was a longtime professor of
Christian ethics at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort
Worth.
"It is inconceivable that Americans would consider dismantling the wall
that separates church and state. But the chisels are out in many forms,"
said Edwards, who represents Texas' 17th Congressional District, which
stretches from the southern suburbs of Fort Worth, through Waco and parts
of Central Texas, down to the Bryan/College Station area.
Edwards addressed the banquet through a videotape and live telephone feed.
He originally intended to attend the Nov. 18 banquet in Dallas, but he
stayed in Washington to vote in a rare Friday night session of Congress.
He cited several examples of the "chisels" that would knock down or bore
holes in the legal/philosophical wall that separates church and state in
America.
They include the "so-called faith-based programs" that would impose
religious qualifications for some federally funded jobs, he said. Another
is a proposal to provide government funding for construction of churches
destroyed or damaged by Hurricane Katrina.
And a bill that would allow pastors to endorse political candidates from
their pulpits "will divide churches like nothing else," Edwards predicted.
"It would demean the spirit of purity of our houses of worship."
"The threat against church-state separation is well-funded. It has misled
the American people," he said. The idea of separation between church and
state "now has a negative connotation for the majority of Americans," he
noted, adding, "That has frightening implications. ...
"'Separation of church and state' doesn't mean keeping Christians out of
government, but government out of church."
Although Christians and others currently find themselves on the defensive,
the battle for religious liberty is winnable, Edwards said. He suggested
several actions they must take to preserve freedom of religion:
**************************************************************
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: Faithful called to shore up wall of separation; article fails 10th Amendment test |
03 Dec 2005 01:48:19 PM |
|
|
alt.education removed.
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
Faithful called to shore up wall of separation
http://www.baptiststandard.com/postnuke/index.php?module=htmlpages&func=display&pid=4280
[excerpt]
Dallas Baptist Standard - Dallas,TX,USA
Faithful called to shore up wall of separation
By Marv Knox
Editor
Although some Americans want to knock down the "wall of separation" between
church and state, people of faith who understand their heritage must resist
those efforts, U.S. Rep. Chet Edwards told participants at the T.B. Maston
Christian Ethics Awards banquet.
Edwards received the 2005 Maston Award for his stalwart defense of
religious liberty, announced Jimmy Allen, chairman of the T.B. Maston
Foundation. The organization's namesake was a longtime professor of
Christian ethics at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort
Worth.
"It is inconceivable that Americans would consider dismantling the wall
that separates church and state. But the chisels are out in many forms,"
said Edwards, who represents Texas' 17th Congressional District, which
stretches from the southern suburbs of Fort Worth, through Waco and parts
of Central Texas, down to the Bryan/College Station area.
U.S. Ref. Chet Edwards is evidently among the vast majority of
constitutionally ignorant Americans who don't understand that
Jefferson's "wall of separation" (Danbury letter) referred only to the
federal government, not the state governments. This is evidenced by
other Jefferson writings which show that the Founding Fathers had
trusted the States with the care of our religious freedoms:
"Our citizens have wisely formed themselves into one nation as to
others and several States as among themselves. To the united nation
belong our external and mutual relations; to each State, severally, the
care of our persons, our property, our reputation and religious
freedom." --Thomas Jefferson: To Rhode Island Assembly, 1801. ME 10:262
If Jefferson had meant absolute church-state separation with his
Danbury letter then the above extract from Jefferson's letter to the
Rhode Island Assembly should not even exist.
The bottom line is that the now ignored 10th Amendment automatically
reserved for the States the power to legislate religion since the 1st
Amendment explicitly prohibited this power only to Congress (federal
government; aka United States):
"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."
Edwards addressed the banquet through a videotape and live telephone feed.
He originally intended to attend the Nov. 18 banquet in Dallas, but he
stayed in Washington to vote in a rare Friday night session of Congress.
He cited several examples of the "chisels" that would knock down or bore
holes in the legal/philosophical wall that separates church and state in
America.
They include the "so-called faith-based programs" that would impose
religious qualifications for some federally funded jobs, he said. Another
<snipped for brevity>
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Faithful called to shore up wall of separation; article fails 10th Amendment test |
03 Dec 2005 09:39:01 PM |
|
|
On 3 Dec 2005 11:48:19 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
If Jefferson had meant absolute church-state separation with his
Danbury letter then the above extract from Jefferson's letter to the
Rhode Island Assembly should not even exist.
A Jefferson letter is not a legally binding document,
Freddie.
Government (local, state or federal) cannot pass laws
in conflict with the constitution.
Making silly "interpretations" about a state being
"sovereign" or the bill of rights only applicable to
the national congress is totally stupid.
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Faithful called to shore up wall of separation; article fails 10th Amendment test |
04 Dec 2005 12:15:52 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On 3 Dec 2005 11:48:19 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
If Jefferson had meant absolute church-state separation with his
Danbury letter then the above extract from Jefferson's letter to the
Rhode Island Assembly should not even exist.
A Jefferson letter is not a legally binding document,
Freddie.
I already know that Jefferson's letters are not legally binding so
don't waste your words on me. Tell it to the corrupt, anti-religious
expression Justices who reference Jefferson's writings in Court
opinions:
"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.
Government (local, state or federal) cannot pass laws
in conflict with the constitution.
Agreed, although you're being hypocritical because you evidently don't
care what the Constitution says in the first place.
Making silly "interpretations" about a state being
"sovereign" or the bill of rights only applicable to
the national congress is totally stupid.
I got that "stupid" idea from Justice Reed. Justice Reed is the one
who referred to the 10th protected sovereign powers of the States.
Justice Reed noted that it is the Court's job to balance the 10th
protecte powers of the States with 14th protected personal federal
rights:
"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." -- Justice Reed, Jones v. City of
Opelika 1942
But instead of doing their jobs with respect to an honest
interpretation of the Constitution, anti-religious expression activist
Justices are now ignoring the 10th and using the 14th as an excuse to
unconstitutionally force the 1st A.'s prohibitions on Congress's powers
on the States.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Faithful called to shore up wall of separation; article fails 10th Amendment test |
04 Dec 2005 09:57:07 AM |
|
|
On 3 Dec 2005 22:15:52 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Knickkkers@WhattaIdiot.com wrote:
On 3 Dec 2005 11:48:19 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
If Jefferson had meant absolute church-state separation with his
Danbury letter then the above extract from Jefferson's letter to the
Rhode Island Assembly should not even exist.
A Jefferson letter is not a legally binding document,
Freddie.
I already know that Jefferson's letters are not legally binding so
don't waste your words on me.
But you keep saying: "if Jefferson had meant...." as
an argument that some part of constitutional law is
wrong.
Government (local, state or federal) cannot pass laws
in conflict with the constitution.
Agreed, although you're being hypocritical because you evidently don't
care what the Constitution says in the first place.
It says that EVERY citizen has a right to be free from
government passed laws abridging freedom of speech...
and religious nuttery.
Making silly "interpretations" about a state being
"sovereign" or the bill of rights only applicable to
the national congress is totally stupid.
I got that "stupid" idea from Justice Reed. Justice Reed is the one
who referred to the 10th protected sovereign powers of the States.
You got a piece of 'obiter dicta" that EVERY ruling
contains. Some is explanatory, some is historical some
is even relevnt to the ruling
Just because Reed says/writes the words "sovereign"
doesn't mean the ruling supports the pure meaning of
the word.
But instead of doing their jobs with respect to an honest
interpretation of the Constitution, anti-religious expression activist
Justices are now ignoring the 10th and using the 14th as an excuse to
unconstitutionally force the 1st A.'s prohibitions on Congress's powers
on the States.
You're full of *****, Freddie
Read the entire opinion, take those ***** snippets
into context with what the issue was.
You whined and moaned about this ***** in the Everson
case, and got spanked for it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Faithful called to shore up wall of separation; article fails 10th Amendment test |
04 Dec 2005 12:37:58 PM |
|
|
wrote:
<snipped for brevity>
Just because Reed says/writes the words "sovereign"
doesn't mean the ruling supports the pure meaning of
the word.
Justice Reed was one of the few Justices that has had the guts to
mention the 10th Amendment in context with our religious freedoms, if
not the only one. Anti-religious expression activist Justices ignore
the 10th altogether because it's probably too much of a loose canon to
have people start asking questions about.
But instead of doing their jobs with respect to an honest
interpretation of the Constitution, anti-religious expression activist
Justices are now ignoring the 10th and using the 14th as an excuse to
unconstitutionally force the 1st A.'s prohibitions on Congress's powers
on the States.
You're full of *****, Freddie
That's a rebuttal straight from the smelly sewer knickkkers. It shows
that you don't have a point to make and you know it too.
Read the entire opinion, take those ***** snippets
into context with what the issue was.
You whined and moaned about this ***** in the Everson
case, and got spanked for it.
crybaby
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Faithful called to shore up wall of separation; article fails 10th Amendment test |
04 Dec 2005 01:56:39 PM |
|
|
On 4 Dec 2005 10:37:58 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Justice Reed was one of the few Justices that has had the guts to
mention the 10th Amendment in context with our religious freedoms,
Court rulings are replete with tens of thousands of
"mentions" of our freedoms, Freddieloon
You're full of *****, Freddie
That's a rebuttal straight from the smelly sewer knickkkers.
I call 'em like I see 'em, Freddie
You whined and moaned about this ***** in the Everson
case, and got spanked for it.
crybaby
But you did, didn't you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Faithful called to shore up wall of separation; article fails 10th Amendment test |
04 Dec 2005 05:00:25 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On 4 Dec 2005 10:37:58 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Justice Reed was one of the few Justices that has had the guts to
mention the 10th Amendment in context with our religious freedoms,
Court rulings are replete with tens of thousands of
"mentions" of our freedoms, Freddieloon
You're sidestepping the issue - again.
SHOW ME tens of thousands of Court opinions that reference the 10th
Amendment.
You're full of *****, Freddie
That's a rebuttal straight from the smelly sewer knickkkers.
I call 'em like I see 'em, Freddie
SHOW ME tens of thousands of Court opinions that reference the 10th
Amendment.
You whined and moaned about this ***** in the Everson
case, and got spanked for it.
crybaby
But you did, didn't you?
SHOW ME tens of thousands of Court opinions that reference the 10th
Amendment.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
