| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
06 Nov 2005 04:28:37 PM |
| Object: |
JEFFERSON & THE CONSTITUTIONAL "WALL OF SEPARATION" |
In 1947 the US Supreme, for the very first time in history defined the
meaning of the Establishment Clause.
In doing so it cited the following sources as background that led them to
define the Establishment Clause in this particular manner:
Everson v. Bd of Ed defined the Establishment Clause. Here are the
footnotes that the court used to pen that definition:
Footnotes to Everson v. Bd of Ed.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?S12525BA6
Readers will note (you won't since facts, truth etc are of no importance
to you. You are a liar and have a agenda, and trolling that agenda is all
you are interested in) that Jefferson was only one of many historical
sources the court looked at in formulating the Establishment Clause
definition.
That definition is as follows: (You will see the one sentence
acknowledgement of Jefferson's metaphor but you will also see that metaphor
isn't really defined or used as an actual rule of law.)
ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE:
The Establishment Clause as defined by the USSC in Everson v. Bd of Ed,
1947
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at
least this:
(1) neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.
(2) Neither can pass laws which aid one religion,
(2a) aid all religions,
(2b) or prefer one religion over another.
(3) Neither can force
(3a) nor influence a person to go to
(3b) or to remain away from church against his will
(3c) or force him to profess a belief
(3d) or disbelief in any religion.
(4) No person can be punished for entertaining [p*16]
(4a) or professing religious beliefs
(4b) or disbeliefs,
(4c) for church attendance
(4d) or non-attendance.
(5) No tax in any amount,
(5a) large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities
(5b) or institutions, whatever they may be called,
(5c) or whatever form they may adopt to teach
(5d) or practice religion.
(6) Neither a state
(6a) nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the
(6b) affairs of any religious organizations
(6c) or groups,
(6d) and vice versa.
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, at 164.
************************************
TESTS:
************************************
Over many years and many cases mainly involving religion in public schools,
the Supreme Court has developed three "tests" to be applied to religious
practices for determining their constitutionality under the Establishment
Clause.
************************************
The LEMON TEST
Based on the 1971 case of Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13, the
Court will rule a practice unconstitutional if:
1.It lacks any secular purpose. That is, if the practice lacks any
non-religious purpose.
2.The practice either promotes or inhibits religion.
3.Or the practice excessively (in the Court's opinion) involves government
with a religion.
************************************
The HISTORICAL TEST
Based on Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983). Requires a unambiguous and
unbroken history of more than 200 years. BTW, the history that was employed
by the Court in Marsh v. Chambers was flawed. See:
Chaplains and Congress
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/chaptest.htm
Chief Justice Burger, I Would Like You To Meet Mr. Madison
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/meet.htm
Discrepancies
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/discrep.htm
The Political Move That Backfired
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/backfire.htm
************************************
THE ENDORSEMENT TEST
Drawing from the 1989 case of Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, the
practice is examined to see if it unconstitutionally endorses religion by
conveying "a message that religion is 'favored,' 'preferred,' or 'promoted'
over other beliefs."
************************************
THE COERCION TEST
Based on the 1992 case of Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 the religious
practice is examined to see to what extent, if any, pressure is applied to
force or coerce individuals to participate. The Court has defined that:
"Unconstitutional coercion occurs when:
(1) the government directs
(2) a formal religious exercise
(3) in such a way as to oblige the participation of objectors."
************************************
:|So with respect to periods that no longer exist, what are you talking
:|about?
History, liar, history and context, liar, context, something you aren't
very familiar with.
All of this has been shown you by a half a dozen or more people
over the past several months, over and over again.
You repeatedly ignore that and return again posting your same examples and
lies in your compulsive trolling habit.|
:|> Jefferson's writing and most of his actions taken as a whole portrays a man
:|> who in action, opinion and belief was a strict separationist fully and
:|> completely championing strict church (religion) and state (govt)
:|> separation and he favored it on both the state and federal level.
:|
:|Not only did Jefferson recognize that the Constitution gives the States
:|the power to address religious issues but Jefferson attended worship
:|services in the Nation's Capitol building. Indeed, several government
:|buildings in DC were used for worship services.
LOL!!!!
This has been addressed over and over with you and only shows beyond any
doubt you are nothing but a troll.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?D2A732CA6
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J1B723CA6
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A6D743CA6
:|> The courts viewed history including Jefferson's writing and the writings of
:|> others in defining the Establishment Clause.
:|> You are the one who misunderstands, not that isn't even true, Far too many
:|> people have pointed out your errors, with facts, not opinions for ignorance
:|> of history or law to apply anymore.
:|> You are a unethical and dishonest troll who intestinally distorts truth,
:|> history, facts, etc.
:|
:|If you examine the opinions of several church/state separation cases you
:|will see that the Court probably didn't even know about Jefferson's
:|other writings and consequently misunderstood the scope of the 1st
:|Amendment's establishment clause.
LOL, and I note that you din't provide any evidence and even was wishy
washy to the point of saying PROBABLY.
You wanht to know what thjey knew and didn't know, here liar:
Everson v. Bd of Ed defined the Establishment Clause. Here are the
footnotes that the court used to pen that definition:
Footnotes to Everson v. Bd of Ed.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?S12525BA6
:|M. Clark, internet troll and nutcase
Try the following as well.
* Christian Orthodoxy And The Founders
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/orthodox.htm
.
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: JEFFERSON & THE CONSTITUTIONAL "WALL OF SEPARATION"; fails 10th Amendment test |
07 Nov 2005 03:13:57 AM |
|
|
alt.education removed.
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
In 1947 the US Supreme, for the very first time in history defined the
meaning of the Establishment Clause.
In doing so it cited the following sources as background that led them to
define the Establishment Clause in this particular manner:
Buckeye-ELO continues to zealously push his misguided,
unconstitutional, separationist agenda by ignoring that the activist
Everson Justices failed to corroborate their cherry-picked references
with respect to justifying their bogus, outcome-driven interpretation
of the establishment clause. The first blunder of the Everson Justices
was to rewrite history by misreprenenting the intentions of the
Founding Fathers with Jefferson's "wall of separation" words when they
wrote:
"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.
And if misrepresenting the intentions of the Founding Fathers wasn't
treasonous enough, the activist Everson Justices shot themselves in the
foot by unthinkingly referencing the Cantwell opinion along with
Jefferson's words, seemingly to assure themselves of success in pulling
the wool over everybody's eyes with respect to their "new and improved"
but *unconstitutional* interpretation of the establishment clause. But
they slipped up because the Cantwell opinion shows that, in complete
opposition to the Justices' assertion about what Jefferson actually
intended about the establishment clause, activist Court Justices had
previously decided that the 14th Amendment took the power of the States
to legislate religion away - yes, power that we are now being led with
Jefferson's coat tails to think that they never had in the first place:
"The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the
legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such
laws." -- Cantwell v. State of Connecticut 1940.
Again, by blessing both Jefferson and the Cantwell opinion to defend
their "profound new insight" into the establishment clause, the nervous
Everson justices unwittingly painted the activist, double talking
Supreme Court into a corner with the absurdity that:
1) the 14th Amendment took away sovereign powers from the States
(Cantwell), powers that...
2) the Court is simulaneously telling us that the States never had in
the first place (Everson, Jefferson).
The Supreme Court is clearly being choked by unconstitutional
separationist political correctness where where the honest, common
sense interpretations of the 1st, 10th and14th Amendments, as these
amendments relate to our freedom of religious expression, are
concerned.
Indeed, all we seem to hear about from the corrupt Court and the
liberal media these days concerning church-state separation issues is
the Founding Father's intentions concerning Jefferson's absolute "wall
of separation". The activist Court cannot afford for the 10th
Amendment protected sovereign powers of the States to be brought to the
public's attention. In the prophetic words of Jefferson:
"The system of the General Government is to seize all doubtful ground.
We must join in the scramble, or get nothing. Where first occupancy is
to give right, he who lies still loses all." --Thomas Jefferson to
James Monroe, 1797. ME 9:423
The bottom line is that the American People are long overdue in heating
the "tar and feathers" with respect to putting a stop to the
unconstitutional, anti-religious expression judicial activism of a
corrupt, outcome-driven Supreme Court.
Everson v. Bd of Ed defined the Establishment Clause. Here are the
footnotes that the court used to pen that definition:
Footnotes to Everson v. Bd of Ed.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?S12525BA6
Readers will note (you won't since facts, truth etc are of no importance
to you. You are a liar and have a agenda, and trolling that agenda is all
you are interested in) that Jefferson was only one of many historical
<Buckeye-ELO's obfuscation snipped for brevity>
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: JEFFERSON & THE CONSTITUTIONAL "WALL OF SEPARATION"; fails 10th Amendment test |
07 Nov 2005 02:39:11 PM |
|
|
On 6 Nov 2005 19:13:57 -0800, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
alt.education removed.
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
In 1947 the US Supreme, for the very first time in history defined the
meaning of the Establishment Clause.
In doing so it cited the following sources as background that led them to
define the Establishment Clause in this particular manner:
Buckeye-ELO continues to zealously push his misguided,
unconstitutional, separationist agenda by ignoring that the activist
Everson Justices failed to corroborate their cherry-picked references
with respect to justifying their bogus, outcome-driven interpretation
of the establishment clause. The first blunder of the Everson Justices
was to rewrite history by misreprenenting the intentions of the
Founding Fathers with Jefferson's "wall of separation" words when they
wrote:
***** Freddie
That's some absolutely fine babbling.
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: JEFFERSON & THE CONSTITUTIONAL "WALL OF SEPARATION"; fails 10th Amendment test |
07 Nov 2005 06:47:45 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On 6 Nov 2005 19:13:57 -0800, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
alt.education removed.
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
In 1947 the US Supreme, for the very first time in history defined the
meaning of the Establishment Clause.
In doing so it cited the following sources as background that led them to
define the Establishment Clause in this particular manner:
Buckeye-ELO continues to zealously push his misguided,
unconstitutional, separationist agenda by ignoring that the activist
Everson Justices failed to corroborate their cherry-picked references
with respect to justifying their bogus, outcome-driven interpretation
of the establishment clause. The first blunder of the Everson Justices
was to rewrite history by misreprenenting the intentions of the
Founding Fathers with Jefferson's "wall of separation" words when they
wrote:
***** Freddie
That's some absolutely fine babbling.
I'll humble myself by noting that I've got quite a ways to go before
I'll have to worry about upping the bar with respect to your babbling
standards.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: JEFFERSON & THE CONSTITUTIONAL "WALL OF SEPARATION"; fails 10th Amendment test |
07 Nov 2005 08:32:05 PM |
|
|
On 7 Nov 2005 10:47:45 -0800, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Buckeye-ELO continues to zealously push his misguided,
unconstitutional, separationist agenda by ignoring that the activist
Everson Justices failed to corroborate their cherry-picked references
with respect to justifying their bogus, outcome-driven interpretation
of the establishment clause. The first blunder of the Everson Justices
was to rewrite history by misreprenenting the intentions of the
Founding Fathers with Jefferson's "wall of separation" words when they
wrote:
***** Freddie
That's some absolutely fine babbling.
I'll humble myself by noting that I've got quite a ways to go before
I'll have to worry about upping the bar with respect to your babbling
standards.
You're Still trying to interpret the constitution.
YOU aren't capable.
You do it by "citing" pieces of rulings---most of which have nothing
to do with the actual case, the ruling.
All you do is ***** and moan about the "outcome"
The "outcome of Everson was that the Statue forbidding the use of
public money to fund Catholic education was constitutional.
It was "constitutional" because GOVERNMENT promotion of religions (and
FUNDING is "promoting") is against the doctrine of separation
=============================================================
Heres the ruling, Freddie: (my formatting)
......This Court has said that parents may, in the discharge of their duty
under state compulsory education laws, send their children to a religious
rather than a public school if the school meets the secular educational
requirements which the state has power to impose
. It appears that these parochial schools meet New Jersey's requirements.
The State contributes no money to the schools. It does not support them.
Its legislation, as applied, does no more than provide a general program to
help parents get their children, regardless of their religion, safely and
expeditiously to and from accredited schools.
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.
New Jersey has not breached it here.
AFFIRMED.
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: JEFFERSON & THE CONSTITUTIONAL "WALL OF SEPARATION"; fails 10th Amendment test |
07 Nov 2005 08:39:25 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On 7 Nov 2005 10:47:45 -0800, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Buckeye-ELO continues to zealously push his misguided,
unconstitutional, separationist agenda by ignoring that the activist
Everson Justices failed to corroborate their cherry-picked references
with respect to justifying their bogus, outcome-driven interpretation
of the establishment clause. The first blunder of the Everson Justices
was to rewrite history by misreprenenting the intentions of the
Founding Fathers with Jefferson's "wall of separation" words when they
wrote:
***** Freddie
That's some absolutely fine babbling.
I'll humble myself by noting that I've got quite a ways to go before
I'll have to worry about upping the bar with respect to your babbling
standards.
You're Still trying to interpret the constitution.
YOU aren't capable.
<ROTFL>
"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore,
be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is
not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything
mean everything or nothing at pleasure." --Thomas Jefferson to William
Johnson, 1823. ME 15:450
"Common sense [is] the foundation of all authorities, of the laws
themselves, and of their construction." --Thomas Jefferson: Batture at
New Orleans, 1812. ME 18:92
You do it by "citing" pieces of rulings---most of which have nothing
to do with the actual case, the ruling.
All you do is ***** and moan about the "outcome"
The "outcome of Everson was that the Statue forbidding the use of
<snipped for brevity>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: JEFFERSON & THE CONSTITUTIONAL "WALL OF SEPARATION"; fails 10th Amendment test |
07 Nov 2005 08:45:25 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 13:32:05 -0700, in alt.atheism
Knickkkers@Hang-up.com wrote in
<f2evm1tbo0u5eiptdkavhnhst9k7u7nl38@4ax.com>:
On 7 Nov 2005 10:47:45 -0800, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Buckeye-ELO continues to zealously push his misguided,
unconstitutional, separationist agenda by ignoring that the activist
Everson Justices failed to corroborate their cherry-picked references
with respect to justifying their bogus, outcome-driven interpretation
of the establishment clause. The first blunder of the Everson Justices
was to rewrite history by misreprenenting the intentions of the
Founding Fathers with Jefferson's "wall of separation" words when they
wrote:
***** Freddie
That's some absolutely fine babbling.
I'll humble myself by noting that I've got quite a ways to go before
I'll have to worry about upping the bar with respect to your babbling
standards.
You're Still trying to interpret the constitution.
YOU aren't capable.
You do it by "citing" pieces of rulings---most of which have nothing
to do with the actual case, the ruling.
All you do is ***** and moan about the "outcome"
The "outcome of Everson was that the Statue forbidding the use of
public money to fund Catholic education was constitutional.
Actually, the outcome was that a statute allowing the right of the Board
of Education to reimburse parents of parochial school students for
travel expenses. This makes his high dudgeon even more confusing.
It was "constitutional" because GOVERNMENT promotion of religions (and
FUNDING is "promoting") is against the doctrine of separation
=============================================================
Heres the ruling, Freddie: (my formatting)
......This Court has said that parents may, in the discharge of their duty
under state compulsory education laws, send their children to a religious
rather than a public school if the school meets the secular educational
requirements which the state has power to impose
. It appears that these parochial schools meet New Jersey's requirements.
The State contributes no money to the schools. It does not support them.
Its legislation, as applied, does no more than provide a general program to
help parents get their children, regardless of their religion, safely and
expeditiously to and from accredited schools.
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.
New Jersey has not breached it here.
AFFIRMED.
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: JEFFERSON & THE CONSTITUTIONAL "WALL OF SEPARATION"; fails 10th Amendment test |
07 Nov 2005 09:09:06 PM |
|
|
David Jensen wrote:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 13:32:05 -0700, in alt.atheism
Knickkkers@Hang-up.com wrote in
<f2evm1tbo0u5eiptdkavhnhst9k7u7nl38@4ax.com>:
<snipped for brevity>
All you do is ***** and moan about the "outcome"
The "outcome of Everson was that the Statue forbidding the use of
public money to fund Catholic education was constitutional.
Actually, the outcome was that a statute allowing the right of the Board
of Education to reimburse parents of parochial school students for
travel expenses. This makes his high dudgeon even more confusing.
Your separationist tunnel-vision is blinding you to the religious
expression "civil war" that is certainly going on within the walls of
the Supreme Court. The Everson opinion is evidence that activist
Justices cherry-pick whatever parts of previous opinions (and
historical documents) that they need to bluff their anti-religious
expression agenda, regardless of the actual outcome of a previous case.
They do so presumably in order to make their outcome-driven opinions
for a current case look as constitutionally sound as possible.
Fortunately for our guaranteed freedoms, activist Justices screwed up
and shot themselves in the foot playing this cherry-picking game with
the Everson opinion. This is because they really got the wires crossed
with respect to referencing conflicting parts of previous opinions to
justify their outcome driven interpretation of the establishment
clause. The folly of the Everson opinion shows that activist Justices
don't really care about our constitutional freedoms and are literally
attempting to rewrite constitutional history in Court opinions.
It was "constitutional" because GOVERNMENT promotion of religions (and
FUNDING is "promoting") is against the doctrine of separation
=============================================================
Heres the ruling, Freddie: (my formatting)
......This Court has said that parents may, in the discharge of their duty
under state compulsory education laws, send their children to a religious
rather than a public school if the school meets the secular educational
requirements which the state has power to impose
. It appears that these parochial schools meet New Jersey's requirements.
The State contributes no money to the schools. It does not support them.
Its legislation, as applied, does no more than provide a general program to
help parents get their children, regardless of their religion, safely and
expeditiously to and from accredited schools.
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.
New Jersey has not breached it here.
AFFIRMED.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: JEFFERSON & THE CONSTITUTIONAL "WALL OF SEPARATION"; fails 10th Amendment test |
07 Nov 2005 11:59:21 PM |
|
|
On 7 Nov 2005 13:09:06 -0800, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
The Everson opinion is evidence that activist
Justices cherry-pick whatever parts of previous opinions (and
historical documents) that they need to bluff their anti-religious
expression agenda,
I got really sad news for you freddie
"picking" of prior decisions is supposed to happen.
They do so presumably in order to make their outcome-driven opinions
for a current case look as constitutionally sound as possible.
I note the word "presumably"----which is why you have a problem
The folly of the Everson opinion shows that activist Justices
don't really care about our constitutional freedoms and are literally
attempting to rewrite constitutional history in Court opinions.
What you don't realize is that it was OTHERS "freedoms" (to not be
required to fund catholic education) that was at issue.
The "wall" is doctrine.
It is "read into" by the USSC
The USSC is the ONLY ones who get to do that.
It was "constitutional" because GOVERNMENT promotion of religions (and
FUNDING is "promoting") is against the doctrine of separation
=============================================================
Heres the ruling, Freddie: (my formatting)
......This Court has said that parents may, in the discharge of their duty
under state compulsory education laws, send their children to a religious
rather than a public school if the school meets the secular educational
requirements which the state has power to impose
. It appears that these parochial schools meet New Jersey's requirements.
The State contributes no money to the schools. It does not support them.
Its legislation, as applied, does no more than provide a general program to
help parents get their children, regardless of their religion, safely and
expeditiously to and from accredited schools.
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.
New Jersey has not breached it here.
AFFIRMED.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
