| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jd" |
| Date: |
19 Aug 2003 06:07:55 PM |
| Object: |
Moore ignites new multicultural vision |
This will come as quite a shock to leftists everywhere. Over 1000
Orthodox Rabbis, as well as representatives from the black
community such as Alan Keyes and T.D. Jakes, voiced support along
with an estimated 10,000 folks who showed up at the Ten
Commandments Rally in Montgomery Alabama.... for Judge Roy Moore
and his stand on the Ten Commandments. Interestingly, 35
atheists also showed up to protest.
At any rate, leftists everywhere will only be making fools of
themselves as they try to portray God-fearin' American Christians
(especially Alabamians) as racists, or neo-nazis, white
supremists or something even worse.
Yeah, they may whine, moan, and sling vile accusations, mock etc.
.... but it's all a hoax on their part. Especially now that their
absolute hypocrisy has been revealed. Think of it... blacks, Jews
and whites standing together in unity. Wasn't their dream a
"multicultural" America? Yes, but it was a hoax. A hoax to
pander support from all the various minorities merely for the
purpose of enslaving them by encouraging "sin".
Perhaps Jews and Blacks from across the nation and portions of
Canada joining in with us Alabamians was just the thing needed to
reveal their devious plots to undermine Americas moral foundation
and their actual hatred for true multicultural unity (especially
the "One nation, under God" type of multicultural).
Honestly, I'm not noted for being a "multicultural" type guy as a
few here can attest. Have I changed? Of course not. If the
fruit's good, the tree is also.
"Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." - Jesus
A spokesman (Rabbi Yehuda Levin) for one of the two major
Rabbinical organizations which support Judge Moore, joined in an
Alabama talk radio show today and further explained how
conservative Jews have found themselves in a similar position as
that of conservative Christians WRT the leftists agenda for an
immoral America. He was the same Rabbi that went to Montgomery
(from New York) to show support for Judge Moore. He actually
made alot of sense. I even e-mailed him a thank-you note for
his efforts.
Here's the release which voices the support of over 1000 Jewish
Rabbis.... for Judge Moore's cause:
THE UNION OF ORTHODOX RABBIS
OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA
and
THE RABBINICAL ALLIANCE OF AMERICA
August 15, 2003 / for immediate release
CONTACT: RABBI YEHUDA LEVIN 718-469-6999
TWO MAJOR RABBINICAL GROUPS SUPPORT
"TEN COMMANDMENTS" JUDGE ROY MOORE
Two major Rabbinical organizations, representing over 1000
Orthodox Rabbis, today declared their support for Alabama Chief
Judge Roy Moore in his battle to keep the Ten Commandments on
display in the Supreme Court building in Montgomery, Alabama.
Lawyer groups, led by the ACLU, have demanded that Judge Moore
remove the display, citing church-state concerns; and Federal
Judge Myron Thompson has given Judge Moore a deadline of August
20 to remove the display. But Judge Moore is refusing to be
intimidated.
Rabbi Hirsch Ginsberg of the Union of Orthodox Rabbis said: "The
Ten Commandments are the basis of civilized society and the rule
of law. It is no accident that legal testimony begins with
swearing to tell the whole truth, while holding a Bible. Here, in
New York City, many courtrooms have a plaque on the wall, right
above the judge's head, proclaiming 'In G-D we trust'."
Rabbi Abraham Hecht of the Rabbinical Alliance added: "It's no
surprise that the ACLU, a radical left-wing organization of
ambulance-chasing rip-off artists, should object to the Ten
Commandments. The Biblical injunctions against lying, stealing,
and adultery must make them feel terribly uncomfortable."
Rabbi Yehuda Levin who is representing the two Rabbinical groups
in Montgomery, Alabama this week, commented on a nasty New York
Times editorial that referred to Judge Moore as a demagogue:
"This is the worst kind of savage yellow journalism. The New York
Times has lately been rocked by scandals, in which it has been
revealed that senior reporters and editorial staff have knowingly
fabricated stories and distorted the news. They have some nerve
criticizing a moral, intelligent, and courageous man like Chief
Judge Moore."
Rabbi Levin will hold a press conference on the steps of the
Alabama Statehouse in Montgomery on
Friday, August 15, 2003, at 10:00 a.m.
After the press conference, Rabbi Levin is to meet with Chief
Judge Moore to make a presentation to him on behalf of the Union
of Orthodox Rabbis and the Rabbinical Alliance.
http://www.jewsformorality.org/aaaw090.htm
-----------------EOF-----------------
"Police would not estimate the size of the crowd, which appeared
to be several thousand people, possibly as many as 10,000.
Falwell said Moore is right to defy Thompson's order if he
believes he is obeying God. "Civil disobedience is the right of
all men when we believe breaking man's law is needed to preserve
God's law," Falwell said.
Evelyn Bradley of Norwalk, California, said she made the trip
because "the Ten Commandments is the most precious and most
important thing in my life right now." "No judge has the right to
tell us we can't post them," said Bradley, 73.
After the rally hundreds of people walked several blocks to the
judicial building, where they lined up to view the monument
inside. Some debated with about 35 atheists holding a counter
protest across the street.
"Personally I believe in science and reason and the only way you
can have freedom of religion is to have separation of church and
state," said Todd Kinley, a research scientist from Huntsville
participating in the counter protest."
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/16/ten.commandments.ap/index.html
-------------------EOF-------------------
Jewish Leaders Rally Around Chief Justice
Ten Commandments Fight Heads To U.S. Supreme Court
POSTED: 4:49 p.m. CDT August 15, 2003
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. -- The fight to keep a Ten Commandments monument
in the Alabama's Judicial Building is winning wider support as
religious leaders rallied with Chief Justice Roy Moore Friday.
"Moore appeared with orthodox Jewish rabbis in Montgomery who
support efforts to keep the monument in the state Supreme Court
building. "If our country does not return to the Biblical values
and standards on which it was founded, who knows what could
happen to us?" Rabbi Yehuda Levin said.
Also backing Moore's monument fight, nationally recognized Bishop
T.D. Jakes, who was in Birmingham Friday. "Well, I think that the
Ten Commandments transcends beliefs and theology and goes down to
core values and morality that every American should want to
embrace," Jakes said."
http://www.nbc13.com/news/2409426/detail.html
"Buses and vans from as far away as California brought Moore
supporters to Montgomery for an enthusiastic rally on a hot and
muggy morning. Evangelist Jerry Falwell and former presidential
candidate Dr. Alan Keyes were among a half-dozen speakers urging
the crowd to take back America from what Keyes described as the
"unruly courts."
"We stand here today in a great tradition," Keyes said. "Not as
our lying critics would have it in the tradition of those who
defied courts in order to oppress and destroy fellow human
beings, but those who stood against unjust laws in order to stand
for rights of all people. This is where we stand."
http://www.nbc13.com/news/2409426/detail.html
-------------------EOF-------------------
"We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of
America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme
Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in
the name, and by authority of the good People of these Colonies,
solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and
of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are
Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all
political connection between them and the State of Great Britain,
is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and
Independent States, they have full power to levy War, conclude
Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all
other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on
the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each
other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
(Declaration of Independence)
"We, the people of the State of Alabama, in order to establish
justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings
of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, invoking the favor and
guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following
Constitution and form of government for the State of Alabama"
Constitution Of Alabama 1901
Jd
"Is not my word like as a fire? saith the Lord; and like a hammer
that breaketh the rock in pieces?" (Jeremiah 23:29)
.
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
01 Sep 2003 11:59:21 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 19:19:55 +0000, M. Clark wrote:
Carol Lee Smith <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, M. Clark wrote:
Jefferson used the term "General Government," Madison evidently used
the word Government. When Jefferson spoke of the General Government
he did not mean the state goverments as some of his writngs show. So
have we misunderstood Madison as we have misunderstood Jefferson?
Who has misunderstood? You have misunderstood.
We've obviously misunderstood Jefferson as his writings show that when he
wrote the "state" part of "separation of church and state" that he was not
referring to state governments, only the federal government.
Jefferson's writings no longer apply. Not since at least the 14th.
You're still almost a century behind. Do try to catch up...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
.
|
|
|
| User: "M. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
03 Sep 2003 10:41:47 AM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 19:19:55 +0000, M. Clark wrote:
Carol Lee Smith <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, M. Clark wrote:
Jefferson used the term "General Government," Madison evidently used
the word Government. When Jefferson spoke of the General Government
he did not mean the state goverments as some of his writngs show. So
have we misunderstood Madison as we have misunderstood Jefferson?
Who has misunderstood? You have misunderstood.
We've obviously misunderstood Jefferson as his writings show that when he
wrote the "state" part of "separation of church and state" that he was not
referring to state governments, only the federal government.
Jefferson's writings no longer apply. Not since at least the 14th.
Here is the relevant wording from the 14th amendment:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;..."
also,
"...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection
of the laws"
This is the "closest" that the 14th amendment comes to "extending" the
constitution to the states but it obviously does not do that. This
wording by no means voids the 10th amendment either. Indeed, consider
that if the purpose of the 14th amendment was to repeal the 10th
amendment that the 14th amendment should have explicitly repealed the
10th amendment just like the 21st amendment was written to explicitly
repeal the 18th amendment.
M. Clark
You're still almost a century behind. Do try to catch up...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
03 Sep 2003 03:08:38 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 15:41:47 +0000, M. Clark wrote:
This is the "closest" that the 14th amendment comes to "extending" the
constitution to the states but it obviously does not do that.
Except it does according to the courts.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
.
|
|
|
| User: "M. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
05 Sep 2003 11:24:19 AM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote:
On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 15:41:47 +0000, M. Clark wrote:
This is the "closest" that the 14th amendment comes to "extending" the
constitution to the states but it obviously does not do that.
Except it does according to the courts.
Have you considered that the courts might be wrong? Judges are people
who are fully capable of screwing things up just like anybody else can.
M. Clark
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
05 Sep 2003 09:35:05 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 16:24:19 +0000, M. Clark wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote:
On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 15:41:47 +0000, M. Clark wrote:
This is the "closest" that the 14th amendment comes to "extending" the
constitution to the states but it obviously does not do that.
Except it does according to the courts.
Have you considered that the courts might be wrong? Judges are people who
are fully capable of screwing things up just like anybody else can.
The courts--being the arbiters of what the law means--cannot, by
definition, be "wrong."
Even if they are, what are going to do, sue them?
--
Mark K. Bilbo
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
01 Sep 2003 02:31:53 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, M. Clark wrote:
Carol Lee Smith <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, M. Clark wrote:
Jefferson used the term "General Government," Madison evidently used the
word Government. When Jefferson spoke of the General Government he did
not mean the state goverments as some of his writngs show. So have we
misunderstood Madison as we have misunderstood Jefferson?
Who has misunderstood? You have misunderstood.
We've obviously misunderstood Jefferson as his writings show that when
he wrote the "state" part of "separation of church and state" that he
was not referring to state governments, only the federal government.
You have misunderstood the whole ball of wax.
Read the decision.
jaylsmith (no relation) said:
"Why haven't you kill filed this troll? He is not conducting a
stimulating discussion with you. He's merely a troll.
THumper"
I would add that your arguments resemble a warped broken record.
Read the decision.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
31 Aug 2003 02:23:35 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 18:06:21 +0000, M. Clark wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 02:14:48 +0000, M. Clark wrote:
But although Thomas Jefferson's "separation of church
and state" is the one most often referenced, Jefferson's "forgotten"
writings show he did not mean church/state separation in an absolute
sense as we have been taught to think.
And what about Madison?
I cannot find where Madison ever used the term "separation of church and
state".
He used the phrase "perfect separation."
It seems that even the religious expression hating atheiests
weren't aware that Jefferson wasn't referring to the states with respect
to his church/separation writing.
*****. YOU may not have been aware of what Jefferson thought. You seem
to think you have "discovered" something nobody else knows about. But
you're an idiot.
Indeed, I notice that people are
foolishly applying that same term to Madison. You people were evidently
just as ignorant about Jefferson's actual thoughts as I was and everybody
else is.
No, YOU were (and are) ignorant.
Jefferson did, indeed, write in a day *before* the 1st was extended by the
14th to limit the power of the states. His comments were, indeed, proper
for the TIME. But things changed.
The reason for bringing in what Jefferson wrote is to illustrate what he
(among many) meant by the 1st amendment. The "wall of separation" is a
valid description.
In the 19th century, that restriction was extended to the states. Whether
you like that or not is irrelevant. The aftermath of the Civil War was the
death of the "states' rights" concept as regards the basic rights of
citizens of the US. States are just as limited now as the federal
government in this area.
Why? BECAUSE WE AMENDED THE CONSTITUTION TO SAY SO.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
.
|
|
|
| User: "M. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
01 Sep 2003 11:01:41 AM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 18:06:21 +0000, M. Clark wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 02:14:48 +0000, M. Clark wrote:
But although Thomas Jefferson's "separation of church
and state" is the one most often referenced, Jefferson's "forgotten"
writings show he did not mean church/state separation in an absolute
sense as we have been taught to think.
And what about Madison?
I cannot find where Madison ever used the term "separation of church and
state".
He used the phrase "perfect separation."
Yes, and let's build Jefferson's wall of separation between religion and
the federal government as high as we can build it. On the other hand,
Jefferson obviously wrote that the Constitution gives the states the
power to address religious matters.
It seems that even the religious expression hating atheiests
weren't aware that Jefferson wasn't referring to the states with respect
to his church/separation writing.
*****. YOU may not have been aware of what Jefferson thought. You seem
to think you have "discovered" something nobody else knows about. But
you're an idiot.
So let's find out how many people didn't know about these particular
Jefferson writings.
Indeed, I notice that people are
foolishly applying that same term to Madison. You people were evidently
just as ignorant about Jefferson's actual thoughts as I was and everybody
else is.
No, YOU were (and are) ignorant.
Jefferson did, indeed, write in a day *before* the 1st was extended by the
14th to limit the power of the states. His comments were, indeed, proper
for the TIME. But things changed.
How many times do you have to be told that the 10th and 14th amendments
were meant to work together? The 10th amendment shows that the states
can have powers not given to the federal governments. Indeed, look at
all the different laws the states have. Jefferson's writings
unquestionably indicate that, unlike the federal government, the
Constitution gives the states the power to address religious matters.
The 14th amendment complements the 10th amendment simply by saying that
the states cannot use their constitutional power to abridge the federal
rights of their citizens. So regardless that the states do have the
constitutional power to address religious matters, the 14th amendment
says that the states cannot use this power to abridge any of the federal
rights of their citizens.
But respect to the 10C, for example, how are the people of the State of
Alabama going to abridge anybody's federal rights by deciding that Judge
Moore can put it on display on state property? Indeed, most people are
just going to walk past the thing anyway, ignoring it.
The reason for bringing in what Jefferson wrote is to illustrate what he
(among many) meant by the 1st amendment. The "wall of separation" is a
valid description.
The wall of separation is a valid description with respect to
Jefferson's perspective of religion and the federal government.
Otherwise, Jefferson clearly had different ideas where the powers of the
states are concerned.
In the 19th century, that restriction was extended to the states. Whether
you like that or not is irrelevant. The aftermath of the Civil War was the
death of the "states' rights" concept as regards the basic rights of
citizens of the US. States are just as limited now as the federal
government in this area.
Why? BECAUSE WE AMENDED THE CONSTITUTION TO SAY SO.
Consider that the amendments must be poorly worded if you have to follow
people around telling them what the amendments really mean.
M. Clark
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
02 Sep 2003 06:57:04 AM |
|
|
(M. Clark) wrote:
:|I cannot find where Madison ever used the term "separation of church and state.
Didn't try very hard did you?
OCTOBER 1, 1803
Notes for annual message, Oct. 17, 1803: alterations and additions, etc [1]
(3) after "assure"-are proposed "in due season, and under prudent
arrangements, important aids to our Treasury, as well as," an ample etc.
Quere: if the two or three succeeding paragraphs be not more
adapted to the separate and subsequent communication, if adopted as above
suggested.
(4) For the first sentence, may be substituted "In the territory between
the Mississippi and the Ohio another valuable acquisition has been made by
a treaty etc."[3.] As it stands, it does not sufficiently distinguish the
nature of the one acquisition from that of the other, and seems to imply
that the acquisition from France was wholly on the other side of the
Mississippi
May it not be as well to omit the detail of the stipulated
considerations, and particularly that of the Roman Catholic Pastor. The
jealousy of some may see in it a principle, not according with the
exemption of Religion from Civil power. In the Indian Treaty it will be
less noticed than in a President's speech.[4.]
[The principle referred to above was the principle of Church (religion)
state (govt) separation.]
FOOTNOTES:
[1.] For TJ's third annual message to Congress, Oct. 17, 1803, see Ford,
VIII, pp. 266-7)
[3.] TI's message announced the acquisition of territory by treaty from the
Kaskaskia Indians; see Ford, VIII, pp. 269-70.
[4.] TJ accepted JM's suggestion to omit any discussion of Indian treaty
requirements to maintain a Roman Catholic priest, leaving the stipulations
in the treaty to "the competence of both houses.... as soon as the senate
shall have advised its ratification"; see ibid.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, Washington, Oct.
1, 1803, Notes for annual message, Oct. 17, 1803: alterations and
additions, etc.[1.], The Republic of Letters, the Correspondence between
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, 1776-1826, Edited by James Morton
Smith, Vol. II, 1790 -1804, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, London,
(1995) pp 1297-98)
---------------------------------------------------
JUNE 3, 1811
"To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I
have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the
Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem
Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical
distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the
purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States,
I could not have other wise discharged my duty on the
occasion which presented itself"
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June
3, 1811. Letters And Other Writings of James Madison Fourth President Of
The United States In Four Volumes Published By the Order Of Congress,
Vol..II, J. B. Lippincott & Co., Philadelphia, (1865) pp 511-512)
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARCH 2, 1819
"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated
hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions
with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of
the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly
increased by the total separation of the church from the State."
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excert of a letter to Robert Walsh from James
Madison. MARCH 2, 1819 Letters and Other writings of James Madison, in
Four Volumes, Published by Order of Congress. VOL. III, J. B. Lippincott &
Co. Philadelphia, (1865), pp 121-126. James Madison on Religious Liberty,
Robert S.Alley, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N.Y. (1985) pp 82-83)
----------------------------------------------------------
1817-1833
"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and Gov't in the
Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by
Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents' already furnished
in their short history"
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excerpt from Madison's Detached Memoranda. This
document was discovered in 1946 among the papers of William Cabell Rives, a
biographer of Madison. Scholars date these observations in Madison's hand
sometime between 1817 and 1832. The entire document was published by
Elizabeth Fleet in the William and Mary Quarterly of October 1946.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
JULY 10, 1822
"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation
between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have
no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done,
in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity
the less they are mixed together"
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excerpt of letter to Edward Livingston from James
Madison, July 10, 1822. Letters and Other writings of James Madison, in
Four Volumes, Published by Order of Congress. VOL. III, J. B. Lippincott &
Co. Philadelphia, (1865), pp 273-276. James Madison on Religious Liberty,
Robert S.Alley, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N.Y. (1985) pp 82-83)
--------------------------------------------------------------
SEPTEMBER 1833
"I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to
trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil
authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on
unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other
or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded
against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way
whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting
each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others".
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Letter written by James Madison to Rev. Jasper
Adams, September, 1833.Writings of James Madison, edited by Gaillard Hunt,
[not sure what the volume number is but have enough information presented
here to locate the letter] microform Z1236.L53, pp 484-488. )
***********************************************
FEBRUARY 2, 1790
a very interesting debate in the House of Representatives, February 2,
1790, when the question of the Federal census was under consideration. The
bill, as reported, provided for the enumeration of farmers, mechanics, and
other groups, but did not include the learned professions. Theodore
Sedgwick of Massachusetts (1746-1813) suggested that it should "specify
every class of citizens, into which the community was divided, in order to
ascertain the actual state of the society." Mr. Madison, in his reply,
said:
FEBRUARY 2, 1790
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
The gentleman from Massachusetts has asked, why the learned professions
were not included? I have no objection to giving a column to the general
body. I think the work would be rendered more complete by the addition, and
if the decision of such a motion turned upon my voice, they shall be added.
But it may nevertheless be observed, that in such a character they can
never be objects of legislative attention or cognizance. As to those who
are employed in teaching and inculcating the duties of religion, there may
be some indelicacy in singling them out, as the General Government is
proscribed from interfering, in any manner whatever, in matters respecting
religion; and it may be thought to do this, in ascertaining who, and who
are not ministers of the Gospel. Conceiving the extension of the plan to
be useful however, and not difficult, I hope it may meet the ready
concurrence of this House. (295)
FOOTNOTE:
295. Gales, Joseph, Sr. Debates and Proceedings of the Congress of the
united States (Washington , 1834) I, 1106-1108
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Church and State in the United States, Volume I,
Anson Phelps Stokes, D.D., L.L.D, Harper & Bros, N Y (1950) p. 346
**************************************
:|Base on Jefferson's perspective of church/state separation as indicated
:|by his above writings, the federal court was wrong for interefering with
:|Judge Moore's display. Whether such things are displayed in public in a
:|state building is up to the people of a given state.
False, as has been shown you dozens upon dozens of times, troll.
Here are some of those previous discussions between you and me: Included
are comments about your two jefferson quotes and other items.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ft07kv07sk454kf165uie5ltbrfjvvhr9f%404ax.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2hm6kv4snakbp7e60bd55d8sor2lbvvhhk%404ax.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=4ff9kvoatc3f99cc127tmd8530nu37992v%404ax.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=q7e9kv8hb3d84tmq6igm7jd9t3b66m5e2q%404ax.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=fab9kvgkfl0a9ip784eo2v7l90560b36mf%404ax.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=85faivgl2d6r2d0pdhdq3h0ovu2epca3rl%404ax.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=tb6aivk7btebd10236ba0ptmthsgnevfnn%404ax.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=s8faivod9ffhkpsmcvolnav164gudru9m5%404ax.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=fab9kvgkfl0a9ip784eo2v7l90560b36mf%404ax.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=men6kvg1r43bbltl10o99so0vjh06afvku%404ax.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=5qs6kvcb4241sq7j3hlc2iqlqhlm1j7jgl%404ax.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=omm6kvo4rnbqtml6f8tp022t8jjprgld1t%404ax.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9ok7kv42hi1brjtkg7m43o356a5te8i9jg%404ax.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=del7kv09ge7s8qa29s3eodg83bf2njiche%404ax.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
Now run along
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
02 Sep 2003 06:57:23 AM |
|
|
(M. Clark) wrote:
:|I cannot find where Madison ever used the term "separation of church and state.
Didn't try very hard did you?
OCTOBER 1, 1803
Notes for annual message, Oct. 17, 1803: alterations and additions, etc [1]
(3) after "assure"-are proposed "in due season, and under prudent
arrangements, important aids to our Treasury, as well as," an ample etc.
Quere: if the two or three succeeding paragraphs be not more
adapted to the separate and subsequent communication, if adopted as above
suggested.
(4) For the first sentence, may be substituted "In the territory between
the Mississippi and the Ohio another valuable acquisition has been made by
a treaty etc."[3.] As it stands, it does not sufficiently distinguish the
nature of the one acquisition from that of the other, and seems to imply
that the acquisition from France was wholly on the other side of the
Mississippi
May it not be as well to omit the detail of the stipulated
considerations, and particularly that of the Roman Catholic Pastor. The
jealousy of some may see in it a principle, not according with the
exemption of Religion from Civil power. In the Indian Treaty it will be
less noticed than in a President's speech.[4.]
[The principle referred to above was the principle of Church (religion)
state (govt) separation.]
FOOTNOTES:
[1.] For TJ's third annual message to Congress, Oct. 17, 1803, see Ford,
VIII, pp. 266-7)
[3.] TI's message announced the acquisition of territory by treaty from the
Kaskaskia Indians; see Ford, VIII, pp. 269-70.
[4.] TJ accepted JM's suggestion to omit any discussion of Indian treaty
requirements to maintain a Roman Catholic priest, leaving the stipulations
in the treaty to "the competence of both houses.... as soon as the senate
shall have advised its ratification"; see ibid.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, Washington, Oct.
1, 1803, Notes for annual message, Oct. 17, 1803: alterations and
additions, etc.[1.], The Republic of Letters, the Correspondence between
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, 1776-1826, Edited by James Morton
Smith, Vol. II, 1790 -1804, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, London,
(1995) pp 1297-98)
---------------------------------------------------
JUNE 3, 1811
"To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I
have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the
Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem
Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical
distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the
purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States,
I could not have other wise discharged my duty on the
occasion which presented itself"
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June
3, 1811. Letters And Other Writings of James Madison Fourth President Of
The United States In Four Volumes Published By the Order Of Congress,
Vol..II, J. B. Lippincott & Co., Philadelphia, (1865) pp 511-512)
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARCH 2, 1819
"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated
hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions
with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of
the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly
increased by the total separation of the church from the State."
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excert of a letter to Robert Walsh from James
Madison. MARCH 2, 1819 Letters and Other writings of James Madison, in
Four Volumes, Published by Order of Congress. VOL. III, J. B. Lippincott &
Co. Philadelphia, (1865), pp 121-126. James Madison on Religious Liberty,
Robert S.Alley, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N.Y. (1985) pp 82-83)
----------------------------------------------------------
1817-1833
"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and Gov't in the
Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by
Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents' already furnished
in their short history"
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excerpt from Madison's Detached Memoranda. This
document was discovered in 1946 among the papers of William Cabell Rives, a
biographer of Madison. Scholars date these observations in Madison's hand
sometime between 1817 and 1832. The entire document was published by
Elizabeth Fleet in the William and Mary Quarterly of October 1946.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
JULY 10, 1822
"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation
between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have
no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done,
in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity
the less they are mixed together"
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excerpt of letter to Edward Livingston from James
Madison, July 10, 1822. Letters and Other writings of James Madison, in
Four Volumes, Published by Order of Congress. VOL. III, J. B. Lippincott &
Co. Philadelphia, (1865), pp 273-276. James Madison on Religious Liberty,
Robert S.Alley, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N.Y. (1985) pp 82-83)
--------------------------------------------------------------
SEPTEMBER 1833
"I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to
trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil
authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on
unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other
or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded
against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way
whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting
each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others".
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Letter written by James Madison to Rev. Jasper
Adams, September, 1833.Writings of James Madison, edited by Gaillard Hunt,
[not sure what the volume number is but have enough information presented
here to locate the letter] microform Z1236.L53, pp 484-488. )
***********************************************
FEBRUARY 2, 1790
a very interesting debate in the House of Representatives, February 2,
1790, when the question of the Federal census was under consideration. The
bill, as reported, provided for the enumeration of farmers, mechanics, and
other groups, but did not include the learned professions. Theodore
Sedgwick of Massachusetts (1746-1813) suggested that it should "specify
every class of citizens, into which the community was divided, in order to
ascertain the actual state of the society." Mr. Madison, in his reply,
said:
FEBRUARY 2, 1790
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
The gentleman from Massachusetts has asked, why the learned professions
were not included? I have no objection to giving a column to the general
body. I think the work would be rendered more complete by the addition, and
if the decision of such a motion turned upon my voice, they shall be added.
But it may nevertheless be observed, that in such a character they can
never be objects of legislative attention or cognizance. As to those who
are employed in teaching and inculcating the duties of religion, there may
be some indelicacy in singling them out, as the General Government is
proscribed from interfering, in any manner whatever, in matters respecting
religion; and it may be thought to do this, in ascertaining who, and who
are not ministers of the Gospel. Conceiving the extension of the plan to
be useful however, and not difficult, I hope it may meet the ready
concurrence of this House. (295)
FOOTNOTE:
295. Gales, Joseph, Sr. Debates and Proceedings of the Congress of the
united States (Washington , 1834) I, 1106-1108
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Church and State in the United States, Volume I,
Anson Phelps Stokes, D.D., L.L.D, Harper & Bros, N Y (1950) p. 346
**************************************
:|Base on Jefferson's perspective of church/state separation as indicated
:|by his above writings, the federal court was wrong for interefering with
:|Judge Moore's display. Whether such things are displayed in public in a
:|state building is up to the people of a given state.
False, as has been shown you dozens upon dozens of times, troll.
Here are some of those previous discussions between you and me: Included
are comments about your two jefferson quotes and other items.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ft07kv07sk454kf165uie5ltbrfjvvhr9f%404ax.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2hm6kv4snakbp7e60bd55d8sor2lbvvhhk%404ax.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=4ff9kvoatc3f99cc127tmd8530nu37992v%404ax.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=q7e9kv8hb3d84tmq6igm7jd9t3b66m5e2q%404ax.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=fab9kvgkfl0a9ip784eo2v7l90560b36mf%404ax.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=85faivgl2d6r2d0pdhdq3h0ovu2epca3rl%404ax.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=tb6aivk7btebd10236ba0ptmthsgnevfnn%404ax.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=s8faivod9ffhkpsmcvolnav164gudru9m5%404ax.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=fab9kvgkfl0a9ip784eo2v7l90560b36mf%404ax.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=men6kvg1r43bbltl10o99so0vjh06afvku%404ax.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=5qs6kvcb4241sq7j3hlc2iqlqhlm1j7jgl%404ax.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=omm6kvo4rnbqtml6f8tp022t8jjprgld1t%404ax.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9ok7kv42hi1brjtkg7m43o356a5te8i9jg%404ax.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=del7kv09ge7s8qa29s3eodg83bf2njiche%404ax.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
Now run along
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
04 Sep 2003 12:48:23 PM |
|
|
(M. Clark) wrote:
:|I cannot find where Madison ever used the term "separation of church and state.
Didn't try very hard did you?
OCTOBER 1, 1803
Notes for annual message, Oct. 17, 1803: alterations and additions, etc [1]
(3) after "assure"-are proposed "in due season, and under prudent
arrangements, important aids to our Treasury, as well as," an ample etc.
Quere: if the two or three succeeding paragraphs be not more
adapted to the separate and subsequent communication, if adopted as above
suggested.
(4) For the first sentence, may be substituted "In the territory between
the Mississippi and the Ohio another valuable acquisition has been made by
a treaty etc."[3.] As it stands, it does not sufficiently distinguish the
nature of the one acquisition from that of the other, and seems to imply
that the acquisition from France was wholly on the other side of the
Mississippi
May it not be as well to omit the detail of the stipulated
considerations, and particularly that of the Roman Catholic Pastor. The
jealousy of some may see in it a principle, not according with the
exemption of Religion from Civil power. In the Indian Treaty it will be
less noticed than in a President's speech.[4.]
[The principle referred to above was the principle of Church (religion)
state (govt) separation.]
FOOTNOTES:
[1.] For TJ's third annual message to Congress, Oct. 17, 1803, see Ford,
VIII, pp. 266-7)
[3.] TI's message announced the acquisition of territory by treaty from the
Kaskaskia Indians; see Ford, VIII, pp. 269-70.
[4.] TJ accepted JM's suggestion to omit any discussion of Indian treaty
requirements to maintain a Roman Catholic priest, leaving the stipulations
in the treaty to "the competence of both houses.... as soon as the senate
shall have advised its ratification"; see ibid.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, Washington, Oct.
1, 1803, Notes for annual message, Oct. 17, 1803: alterations and
additions, etc.[1.], The Republic of Letters, the Correspondence between
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, 1776-1826, Edited by James Morton
Smith, Vol. II, 1790 -1804, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, London,
(1995) pp 1297-98)
---------------------------------------------------
JUNE 3, 1811
"To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I
have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the
Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem
Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical
distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the
purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States,
I could not have other wise discharged my duty on the
occasion which presented itself"
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June
3, 1811. Letters And Other Writings of James Madison Fourth President Of
The United States In Four Volumes Published By the Order Of Congress,
Vol..II, J. B. Lippincott & Co., Philadelphia, (1865) pp 511-512)
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARCH 2, 1819
"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated
hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions
with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of
the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly
increased by the total separation of the church from the State."
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excert of a letter to Robert Walsh from James
Madison. MARCH 2, 1819 Letters and Other writings of James Madison, in
Four Volumes, Published by Order of Congress. VOL. III, J. B. Lippincott &
Co. Philadelphia, (1865), pp 121-126. James Madison on Religious Liberty,
Robert S.Alley, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N.Y. (1985) pp 82-83)
----------------------------------------------------------
1817-1833
"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and Gov't in the
Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by
Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents' already furnished
in their short history"
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excerpt from Madison's Detached Memoranda. This
document was discovered in 1946 among the papers of William Cabell Rives, a
biographer of Madison. Scholars date these observations in Madison's hand
sometime between 1817 and 1832. The entire document was published by
Elizabeth Fleet in the William and Mary Quarterly of October 1946.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
JULY 10, 1822
"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation
between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have
no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done,
in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity
the less they are mixed together"
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excerpt of letter to Edward Livingston from James
Madison, July 10, 1822. Letters and Other writings of James Madison, in
Four Volumes, Published by Order of Congress. VOL. III, J. B. Lippincott &
Co. Philadelphia, (1865), pp 273-276. James Madison on Religious Liberty,
Robert S.Alley, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N.Y. (1985) pp 82-83)
--------------------------------------------------------------
SEPTEMBER 1833
"I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to
trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil
authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on
unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other
or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded
against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way
whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting
each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others".
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Letter written by James Madison to Rev. Jasper
Adams, September, 1833.Writings of James Madison, edited by Gaillard Hunt,
[not sure what the volume number is but have enough information presented
here to locate the letter] microform Z1236.L53, pp 484-488. )
***********************************************
FEBRUARY 2, 1790
a very interesting debate in the House of Representatives, February 2,
1790, when the question of the Federal census was under consideration. The
bill, as reported, provided for the enumeration of farmers, mechanics, and
other groups, but did not include the learned professions. Theodore
Sedgwick of Massachusetts (1746-1813) suggested that it should "specify
every class of citizens, into which the community was divided, in order to
ascertain the actual state of the society." Mr. Madison, in his reply,
said:
FEBRUARY 2, 1790
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
The gentleman from Massachusetts has asked, why the learned professions
were not included? I have no objection to giving a column to the general
body. I think the work would be rendered more complete by the addition, and
if the decision of such a motion turned upon my voice, they shall be added.
But it may nevertheless be observed, that in such a character they can
never be objects of legislative attention or cognizance. As to those who
are employed in teaching and inculcating the duties of religion, there may
be some indelicacy in singling them out, as the General Government is
proscribed from interfering, in any manner whatever, in matters respecting
religion; and it may be thought to do this, in ascertaining who, and who
are not ministers of the Gospel. Conceiving the extension of the plan to
be useful however, and not difficult, I hope it may meet the ready
concurrence of this House. (295)
FOOTNOTE:
295. Gales, Joseph, Sr. Debates and Proceedings of the Congress of the
united States (Washington , 1834) I, 1106-1108
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Church and State in the United States, Volume I,
Anson Phelps Stokes, D.D., L.L.D, Harper & Bros, N Y (1950) p. 346
**************************************
:|Base on Jefferson's perspective of church/state separation as indicated
:|by his above writings, the federal court was wrong for interefering with
:|Judge Moore's display. Whether such things are displayed in public in a
:|state building is up to the people of a given state.
False, as has been shown you dozens upon dozens of times.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
02 Sep 2003 12:08:41 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 16:01:41 +0000, M. Clark wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 18:06:21 +0000, M. Clark wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 02:14:48 +0000, M. Clark wrote:
But although Thomas Jefferson's "separation of church
and state" is the one most often referenced, Jefferson's
"forgotten" writings show he did not mean church/state separation
in an absolute sense as we have been taught to think.
And what about Madison?
I cannot find where Madison ever used the term "separation of church
and state".
He used the phrase "perfect separation."
Yes, and let's build Jefferson's wall of separation between religion and
the federal government as high as we can build it. On the other hand,
Jefferson obviously wrote that the Constitution gives the states the power
to address religious matters.
No, let's use Madison's opinion that the "perfect separation" applies to
BOTH state and federal.
Madison *did write the 1st Amendment after all.
It seems that even the religious expression hating atheiests weren't
aware that Jefferson wasn't referring to the states with respect to
his church/separation writing.
*****. YOU may not have been aware of what Jefferson thought. You
seem to think you have "discovered" something nobody else knows about.
But you're an idiot.
So let's find out how many people didn't know about these particular
Jefferson writings.
Not everybody is as stupid as you.
Indeed, I notice that people are
foolishly applying that same term to Madison. You people were
evidently just as ignorant about Jefferson's actual thoughts as I was
and everybody else is.
No, YOU were (and are) ignorant.
Jefferson did, indeed, write in a day *before* the 1st was extended by
the 14th to limit the power of the states. His comments were, indeed,
proper for the TIME. But things changed.
How many times do you have to be told that the 10th and 14th amendments
were meant to work together?
You are flat wrong. There are no words for how wrong you are. You are the
giant black hole of wrong that sucks entire galaxies out of existence.
The 10th amendment shows that the states can
have powers not given to the federal governments. Indeed, look at all the
different laws the states have. Jefferson's writings unquestionably
indicate that, unlike the federal government, the Constitution gives the
states the power to address religious matters.
Jefferson was not only wrong according to Madison who (everybody) WROTE
THE 1ST AMENDMENT but the 14th changed the Constitution explicitly. If the
10th conflicts in anyway with the 14th, obviously the 10th has also been
altered.
That's what amendments *DO.*
The 14th amendment complements the 10th amendment simply by saying that
the states cannot use their constitutional power to abridge the federal
rights of their citizens.
The AUTHORS of the 14th said that it granted to Congress the power to
ENFORCE even against the states the ALREADY EXISTING restriction of the
1st.
So regardless that the states do have the
constitutional power to address religious matters, the 14th amendment says
that the states cannot use this power to abridge any of the federal rights
of their citizens.
So what's your *****?
But respect to the 10C, for example, how are the people of the State of
Alabama going to abridge anybody's federal rights by deciding that Judge
Moore can put it on display on state property? Indeed, most people are
just going to walk past the thing anyway, ignoring it.
There is no such thing as "federal rights." We abolished that concept a
long time ago. Quoting Jefferson won't do you any good. We abolished the
concept of "federal rights" after he was dead.
Moore is bound by the 1st and cannot endorse a particular religion. That's
part of the intent of the 1st. He is, as a chief justice of a court,
openly and publicly endorsing a religion IN A PUBLICLY OWNED BUILDING.
That's a public building Skiddo, Moore doesn't own it.
The reason for bringing in what Jefferson wrote is to illustrate what he
(among many) meant by the 1st amendment. The "wall of separation" is a
valid description.
The wall of separation is a valid description with respect to Jefferson's
perspective of religion and the federal government. Otherwise, Jefferson
clearly had different ideas where the powers of the states are concerned.
I know that. Anybody who is familiar with Jefferson's writings knows that.
Anybody who knows the basic history of our government also knows that
a lot's happened in the two centuries since.
In the 19th century, that restriction was extended to the states.
Whether you like that or not is irrelevant. The aftermath of the Civil
War was the death of the "states' rights" concept as regards the basic
rights of citizens of the US. States are just as limited now as the
federal government in this area.
Why? BECAUSE WE AMENDED THE CONSTITUTION TO SAY SO.
Consider that the amendments must be poorly worded if you have to follow
people around telling them what the amendments really mean.
Oh? And yet *YOU* are doing just that.
Hypocrite.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
.
|
|
|
| User: "M. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
03 Sep 2003 10:41:38 AM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 16:01:41 +0000, M. Clark wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 18:06:21 +0000, M. Clark wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 02:14:48 +0000, M. Clark wrote:
But although Thomas Jefferson's "separation of church
and state" is the one most often referenced, Jefferson's
"forgotten" writings show he did not mean church/state separation
in an absolute sense as we have been taught to think.
And what about Madison?
I cannot find where Madison ever used the term "separation of church
and state".
He used the phrase "perfect separation."
Yes, and let's build Jefferson's wall of separation between religion and
the federal government as high as we can build it. On the other hand,
Jefferson obviously wrote that the Constitution gives the states the power
to address religious matters.
No, let's use Madison's opinion that the "perfect separation" applies to
BOTH state and federal.
Again, the problem is that everybody has been thinking that the "state"
part of Jefferson's "separation of church and state" was meant to be
understood in an absolute sense, that is, meaning both federal and state
governments. Jefferson's writings clearly show that we have been badly
mistaken.
Madison *did write the 1st Amendment after all.
It seems that even the religious expression hating atheiests weren't
aware that Jefferson wasn't referring to the states with respect to
his church/separation writing.
*****. YOU may not have been aware of what Jefferson thought. You
seem to think you have "discovered" something nobody else knows about.
But you're an idiot.
So let's find out how many people didn't know about these particular
Jefferson writings.
Not everybody is as stupid as you.
Indeed, I notice that people are
foolishly applying that same term to Madison. You people were
evidently just as ignorant about Jefferson's actual thoughts as I was
and everybody else is.
No, YOU were (and are) ignorant.
Jefferson did, indeed, write in a day *before* the 1st was extended by
the 14th to limit the power of the states. His comments were, indeed,
proper for the TIME. But things changed.
How many times do you have to be told that the 10th and 14th amendments
were meant to work together?
You are flat wrong. There are no words for how wrong you are. You are the
giant black hole of wrong that sucks entire galaxies out of existence.
As I've already posted elsewhere, here are the key words from the 14th
amendment that apply to this discussion:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;..."
also,
"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of
the laws."
None of the above wording from the 14th amendment can reasonably be
construed as meaing that the 10th amendment has been voided. Indeed,
consider that if the purpose of the 14th amendment was to repeal the
10th amendment that the 14th amendment should have explicitly repealed
the 10th amendment just like the 21st amendment was written to
explicitly repeal the 18th amendment.
The 10th amendment shows that the states can
have powers not given to the federal governments. Indeed, look at all the
different laws the states have. Jefferson's writings unquestionably
indicate that, unlike the federal government, the Constitution gives the
states the power to address religious matters.
Jefferson was not only wrong according to Madison who (everybody) WROTE
THE 1ST AMENDMENT but the 14th changed the Constitution explicitly. If the
10th conflicts in anyway with the 14th, obviously the 10th has also been
altered.
The problem is that Madison's 1st amendment clearly doesn't say what you
are claiming it says in the first place. Show me where you were hired
to follow people around to explain the 1st, 10th and 14th amendments to
them in case they "misread" them.
That's what amendments *DO.*
The 14th amendment complements the 10th amendment simply by saying that
the states cannot use their constitutional power to abridge the federal
rights of their citizens.
The AUTHORS of the 14th said that it granted to Congress the power to
ENFORCE even against the states the ALREADY EXISTING restriction of the
1st.
As I've already posted above, here are the key words from the 14th
amendment that apply to this discussion:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;..."
also,
"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of
the laws."
These words obviously do not mean what you claim they mean. Again,
consider that if the purpose of the 14th amendment was to repeal the
10th amendment that the 14th amendment should have explicitly repealed
the 10th amendment just like the 21st amendment was written to
explicitly repeal the 18th amendment.
So regardless that the states do have the
constitutional power to address religious matters, the 14th amendment says
that the states cannot use this power to abridge any of the federal rights
of their citizens.
So what's your *****?
But respect to the 10C, for example, how are the people of the State of
Alabama going to abridge anybody's federal rights by deciding that Judge
Moore can put it on display on state property? Indeed, most people are
just going to walk past the thing anyway, ignoring it.
There is no such thing as "federal rights." We abolished that concept a
long time ago. Quoting Jefferson won't do you any good. We abolished the
concept of "federal rights" after he was dead.
SHOW ME where federal rights were abolished a long time ago.
Moore is bound by the 1st and cannot endorse a particular religion. That's
The 1st amendment obviously binds nobody but Congress.
part of the intent of the 1st. He is, as a chief justice of a court,
?????
I gather that "intent" is anything that you choose to read into the 1st
amendment.
openly and publicly endorsing a religion IN A PUBLICLY OWNED BUILDING.
There are no federal or state laws concerning Alabama that say that
Judge Moore cannot display the 10C in a publically owned building. Both
the Alabama Constitution and the US Constitution say any such laws
concerning religion would be illegal anyway and should never have been
written in the first place.
That's a public building Skiddo, Moore doesn't own it.
Indeed, Jefferson's writings pertainaing to this issue show that
Jefferson believed that it's entirely up to the people of the state of
Alabama to decide if Judge Moore can display his 10C in a publically
owned building.
The reason for bringing in what Jefferson wrote is to illustrate what he
(among many) meant by the 1st amendment. The "wall of separation" is a
valid description.
The wall of separation is a valid description with respect to Jefferson's
perspective of religion and the federal government. Otherwise, Jefferson
clearly had different ideas where the powers of the states are concerned.
I know that. Anybody who is familiar with Jefferson's writings knows that.
Anybody who knows the basic history of our government also knows that
a lot's happened in the two centuries since.
Thank you for your opinion but I think that you are completely wrong
about what people think about what Jefferson meant.
In the 19th century, that restriction was extended to the states.
Whether you like that or not is irrelevant. The aftermath of the Civil
War was the death of the "states' rights" concept as regards the basic
rights of citizens of the US. States are just as limited now as the
federal government in this area.
Why? BECAUSE WE AMENDED THE CONSTITUTION TO SAY SO.
Consider that the amendments must be poorly worded if you have to follow
people around telling them what the amendments really mean.
Oh? And yet *YOU* are doing just that.
I encourage people to read the Constitution and its amendments for
themselves.
M. Clark
Hypocrite.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken Shaw" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
03 Sep 2003 12:39:43 PM |
|
|
"M. Clark" <idontreply@toemail.com> wrote in message
news:1g0nndn.1mus6271lfzgwzN%idontreply@toemail.com...
Mark K. Bilbo <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 16:01:41 +0000, M. Clark wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 18:06:21 +0000, M. Clark wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 02:14:48 +0000, M. Clark wrote:
But although Thomas Jefferson's "separation of church
and state" is the one most often referenced, Jefferson's
"forgotten" writings show he did not mean church/state
separation
in an absolute sense as we have been taught to think.
And what about Madison?
I cannot find where Madison ever used the term "separation of
church
and state".
He used the phrase "perfect separation."
Yes, and let's build Jefferson's wall of separation between religion
and
the federal government as high as we can build it. On the other hand,
Jefferson obviously wrote that the Constitution gives the states the
power
to address religious matters.
No, let's use Madison's opinion that the "perfect separation" applies to
BOTH state and federal.
Again, the problem is that everybody has been thinking that the "state"
part of Jefferson's "separation of church and state" was meant to be
understood in an absolute sense, that is, meaning both federal and state
governments. Jefferson's writings clearly show that we have been badly
mistaken.
Madison *did write the 1st Amendment after all.
It seems that even the religious expression hating atheiests
weren't
aware that Jefferson wasn't referring to the states with respect to
his church/separation writing.
*****. YOU may not have been aware of what Jefferson thought. You
seem to think you have "discovered" something nobody else knows
about.
But you're an idiot.
So let's find out how many people didn't know about these particular
Jefferson writings.
Not everybody is as stupid as you.
Indeed, I notice that people are
foolishly applying that same term to Madison. You people were
evidently just as ignorant about Jefferson's actual thoughts as I
was
and everybody else is.
No, YOU were (and are) ignorant.
Jefferson did, indeed, write in a day *before* the 1st was extended
by
the 14th to limit the power of the states. His comments were, indeed,
proper for the TIME. But things changed.
How many times do you have to be told that the 10th and 14th
amendments
were meant to work together?
You are flat wrong. There are no words for how wrong you are. You are
the
giant black hole of wrong that sucks entire galaxies out of existence.
As I've already posted elsewhere, here are the key words from the 14th
amendment that apply to this discussion:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;..."
also,
"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of
the laws."
None of the above wording from the 14th amendment can reasonably be
construed as meaing that the 10th amendment has been voided. Indeed,
consider that if the purpose of the 14th amendment was to repeal the
10th amendment that the 14th amendment should have explicitly repealed
the 10th amendment just like the 21st amendment was written to
explicitly repeal the 18th amendment.
The 10th amendment shows that the states can
have powers not given to the federal governments. Indeed, look at all
the
different laws the states have. Jefferson's writings unquestionably
indicate that, unlike the federal government, the Constitution gives
the
states the power to address religious matters.
Jefferson was not only wrong according to Madison who (everybody) WROTE
THE 1ST AMENDMENT but the 14th changed the Constitution explicitly. If
the
10th conflicts in anyway with the 14th, obviously the 10th has also been
altered.
The problem is that Madison's 1st amendment clearly doesn't say what you
are claiming it says in the first place. Show me where you were hired
to follow people around to explain the 1st, 10th and 14th amendments to
them in case they "misread" them.
That's what amendments *DO.*
The 14th amendment complements the 10th amendment simply by saying
that
the states cannot use their constitutional power to abridge the
federal
rights of their citizens.
The AUTHORS of the 14th said that it granted to Congress the power to
ENFORCE even against the states the ALREADY EXISTING restriction of the
1st.
As I've already posted above, here are the key words from the 14th
amendment that apply to this discussion:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;..."
also,
"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of
the laws."
Let's assume for a moment that your grossly incorrect reading of the
Constitution and ammendments is correct. The display of the 10C in a
prominent place in the Supreme Court building in Alabama is still a
violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th ammendment. The SCOTUS
ruled in Brown vs. Board of Ed. that even the appearance of an equal
protection violation is a violation. Therefore since the display gives
people not members of a Judeo-Christian faith the impression that the state
supreme court considers the 10C including the ones dealing with religious
practice to be the basis of US law. This is an unconstitutional breach of
equal protection.
Let no one believe that the above paragraph indicate that I support Mr.
Clark's theory.
Ken
.
|
|
|
| User: "M. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
05 Sep 2003 11:24:11 AM |
|
|
[snip]
1st.
As I've already posted above, here are the key words from the 14th
amendment that apply to this discussion:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;..."
also,
"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of
the laws."
Let's assume for a moment that your grossly incorrect reading of the
Constitution and ammendments is correct. The display of the 10C in a
prominent place in the Supreme Court building in Alabama is still a
violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th ammendment. The SCOTUS
With respect to your claim that the 10C is a violation of the equal
protection clause of the 14th amendment, please SHOW ME an Alabama law
that denies equal protection and then SHOW ME a list of people who have
indeed been denied equal protection because of this law. Otherwise, I
will not be a slave to your undisiplined imagination.
M. Clark
ruled in Brown vs. Board of Ed. that even the appearance of an equal
protection violation is a violation. Therefore since the display gives
people not members of a Judeo-Christian faith the impression that the state
supreme court considers the 10C including the ones dealing with religious
practice to be the basis of US law. This is an unconstitutional breach of
equal protection.
Let no one believe that the above paragraph indicate that I support Mr.
Clark's theory.
Ken
.
|
|
|
| User: "Skitter the Cat" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
09 Sep 2003 12:10:17 PM |
|
|
STEPHEN R. GLASSROTH, MELINDA MADDOX and BEVERLY HOWARD
On 5-Sep-2003, (M. Clark) wrote:
<snip>
With respect to your claim that the 10C is a violation of the equal
protection clause of the 14th amendment, please SHOW ME an Alabama law
that denies equal protection and then SHOW ME a list of people who have
indeed been denied equal protection because of this law. Otherwise, I
will not be a slave to your undisiplined imagination.
You wish a specific list of those whose have been denied "equal
protection"-ok, here it is: Stephen R. Glassroth, Melinda Maddow and Beverly
Howard. They were the plaintiffs in the case, and their courage in bringing
such a suit was commended by the Court. The ruling against Judge Moore held
that their rights were abridged. This abridgment was neither fancy nor
imagination. To the plaintiffs, and to the Court, it was quite real. That
was the judgment of a US Federal Court, acting in a well reasoned
application of law.
As Citizens of the United States, they are, and were-just as I am, or any
other citizen of the Republic- entitled to redress of their grievances under
our system. They thought and believed that their rights had been violated.
They took the appropriate action, as should anyone.
Skitter the Cat
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
09 Sep 2003 03:01:20 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Skitter the Cat wrote:
CB:
With respect to your claim that the 10C is a violation of the equal
protection clause of the 14th amendment, please SHOW ME an Alabama law
that denies equal protection and then SHOW ME a list of people who have
indeed been denied equal protection because of this law. Otherwise, I
will not be a slave to your undisiplined imagination.
You wish a specific list of those whose have been denied "equal
protection"-ok, here it is: Stephen R. Glassroth, Melinda Maddow and Beverly
Howard. They were the plaintiffs in the case, and their courage in bringing
such a suit was commended by the Court.
This information was posted before. The Moore-oners often ignore the
facts of the case.
The ruling against Judge Moore held that their rights were abridged.
And they were. But it doesn't end there. The harrassment followed:
Alabama residents are wreaking a nasty revenge on the woman who took their
states chief justice to court over his religious monument
http://www.msnbc.com/news/956098.asp?cp1=1
This abridgment was neither fancy nor
imagination. To the plaintiffs, and to the Court, it was quite real. That
was the judgment of a US Federal Court, acting in a well reasoned
application of law.
As Citizens of the United States, they are, and were-just as I am, or any
other citizen of the Republic- entitled to redress of their grievances under
our system. They thought and believed that their rights had been violated.
They took the appropriate action, as should anyone.
Damn straight.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
10 Sep 2003 05:27:57 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 20:01:20 +0000, Carol Lee Smith wrote:
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Skitter the Cat wrote:
CB:
With respect to your claim that the 10C is a violation of the equal
protection clause of the 14th amendment, please SHOW ME an Alabama law
that denies equal protection and then SHOW ME a list of people who have
indeed been denied equal protection because of this law. Otherwise, I
will not be a slave to your undisiplined imagination.
You wish a specific list of those whose have been denied "equal
protection"-ok, here it is: Stephen R. Glassroth, Melinda Maddow and Beverly
Howard. They were the plaintiffs in the case, and their courage in bringing
such a suit was commended by the Court.
This information was posted before. The Moore-oners often ignore the
facts of the case.
The ruling against Judge Moore held that their rights were abridged.
And they were. But it doesn't end there. The harrassment followed:
Alabama residents are wreaking a nasty revenge on the woman who took their
states chief justice to court over his religious monument
http://www.msnbc.com/news/956098.asp?cp1=1
"Maddox was ostracized and lost her practice. She received death threats."
Death threats. Ah those loving, moral christians!
If we could all just aspire to be like them...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Iain Greig" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
03 Sep 2003 04:26:21 PM |
|
|
M. Clark <idontreply@toemail.com> wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote:
How many times do you have to be told that the 10th and 14th amendments
were meant to work together?
You are flat wrong. There are no words for how wrong you are. You are the
giant black hole of wrong that sucks entire galaxies out of existence.
As I've already posted elsewhere, here are the key words from the 14th
amendment that apply to this discussion:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;..."
also,
"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of
the laws."
None of the above wording from the 14th amendment can reasonably be
construed as meaing that the 10th amendment has been voided. Indeed,
consider that if the purpose of the 14th amendment was to re | | | | | |
