Religions > Atheism > Moment of silence for reflection replaces Lord's Prayer at
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
19 Feb 2006 10:44:37 AM |
| Object: |
Moment of silence for reflection replaces Lord's Prayer at |
Moment of silence for reflection replaces Lord's Prayer at
http://www.vindy.com/content/local_regional/285430529271030.php
Youngstown Vindicator - Youngstown,OH,USA
.... The First Amendment to the US Constitution, as interpreted by various
courts, requires a separation of church and state. The principle ...
***************************************************************
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 US 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)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Moment of silence for reflection replaces Lord's Prayer at; article fails 10th test |
19 Feb 2006 04:16:36 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Moment of silence for reflection replaces Lord's Prayer at
http://www.vindy.com/content/local_regional/285430529271030.php
Youngstown Vindicator - Youngstown,OH,USA
... The First Amendment to the US Constitution, as interpreted by various
courts, requires a separation of church and state. The principle ...
Ground zero for today's social rest concerning church-state separation
controversies seems to be the Court's treasonous interpretation of the
14th Amendment in the Cantwell opinion. But before I go into detail
why this is so, let's review some limited history concerning the
Constitution.
Regardless that the commingling of church and state powers today is now
regarded by atheists, separationists, secular judges and the liberal
media as pure evil, constitutionally ignorant Americans have long
forgotten that the original States had the power to legislate religion
before the federal government even existed. When the States
established the federal government and it's Constitution, they reserved
the power to legislate religion uniquely for the States as evidenced by
the 10th Amendment; the 10th Amendment automatically reserved this
power for the States since the 1st Amendment prohibited the power to
legislate religion only to Congress (federal government, aka United
States):
10th Amendment: 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.
The problem is that corrupt Supreme Court Justices mutinied against the
States (again, the USSC was established by the States) with a
treasonous interpretation of the 14th Amendment in the Cantwell
opinion:
"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.
The treasonous sleight-of-hand of the above statement is that the 14th
Amendment did not magically appear in the Constitution overnight for
the States to start bowing down to like the Court evidently wants
everybody to think; again, the people through their repesentatives are
the ones who authorized the 14th Amendment by means of their Article 5
powers! But because of today's prevalent constitutional ignorance, the
people don't understand that the Court's statement about the 14th
essentially says that the people went to the Court on their knees and
not only confessed (what happened to their 5th Amendment protections?)
that they were incompetent to exercise the power to legislate religion
which their Founding Fathers had retained for them but that they were
surrendering this power to the Court which they established; would
their own creation, the Court, have mercy on the wretched American
people? Note that while some states had indeed used their power to
abridge personal freedoms which necessitated the 14th A., many states
had respected personal federal rights without needing such an amendment
ordering them to do so.
Again, given the people are the ones who established the Court through
their representatives in the first place, the Court's notion that the
14th is appropriately regarded as a self-incriminating confession of
incompetence and surrendering of power by the people is nothing other
than an act of treasonous mutiny against the people. Indeed, the
Cantwell Justices also evidently regarded the 10th Amendment as a loose
cannon that they could not afford to draw attention to. This is
evidenced by the fact that they "inadvertently overlooked" any
reference to the 10th A. in the Cantwell opinion. But as widespread
constitutional ignorance had already taken its toll, the people's best
response to the Court's treasonous interpretation of the 14th and
sweeping the 10th under the carpet was merely to sit on their hands and
do nothing. The Court had successfully used the Cantwell opinion to
establish what would become a long tradition of legislating from the
bench in the name of case precedent, particularly with respect to
misguiding the judicial system to start legislating unconstitutional,
absolute church-state separation from the bench on a case by case
basis.
For example, the article at the link below concerns a public school in
California who decided to scrap its plans for a class in intelligent
design. The reason that the school scrapped its plans is not because
it might break some law; the 1st A. prohibits Congress from making
religious laws. The reason that the school scrapped its plans is
because it didn't want to get dragged in front of some secular-minded,
anti-religious expression judge who would predictably legislate from
the bench by throwing the unconstitutional absolute church-state
separation book at the school.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181905,00.html
Fortunately, Justice Reed wrote a rare note about the 10th Amendment in
the Opelika opinion, a note which unifies how checks and balances
between the 1st, 10th and 14th Amendments are supposed to work:
"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 balancing the 10th protected sovereign powers of the
States with 14th protected personal federal rights as they should,
corrupt, secular-minded Justices are now using a politically correct,
anti-religious expression interpretation of the 14th as an excuse to
unconstitutionally force the 1st A's prohibition of the power to
legislate religion on Congress onto the States. This is evidenced by
the example of the California public school and its scrapped
intelligent design class. Otherwise, the States have the
constitutional power (10th) to authorize public schools to lead
non-mandatory (14th) classroom discussions about the pros and cons of
evolution, creationism and irreducible complexity, for example,
regardless if atheists, separationists, secular judges and the liberal
media are misleading the people to think that such things are
unconstitutional.
The bottom line is that it's time for the people to wake up to what the
Constitution actually says about their religious freedoms, the people
authorized the Constitution after all, and take Lincoln's advice and
overthrow their corrupt Court:
"We the People are the rightful master of both congress and the courts
- not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who
pervert the Constitution." --Abraham Lincoln: Political debates between
Lincoln and Douglas, 1858
***************************************************************
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 US 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)
. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
