| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
03 Aug 2005 07:09:58 AM |
| Object: |
NO taxpayer funds to fix Catholic missions |
http://www.modbee.com/opinion/letters/story/11009149p-11770946c.html
Don't use taxpayer funds to fix Catholic missions
Last Updated: August 1, 2005, 05:10:56 AM PDT
The Bee's support of public financing for upkeep of California's Roman
Catholic missions ("Don't let contrived concerns leave historic missions to
decay," July 25, Page B-6) skirts the core church-state issues involved.
The government is out of line when it forces citizens to pay for repairs at
the state's 21 missions, 19 of which are still owned by the Catholic Church
and used for worship.
Taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize religion. These missions are
historic, but they are still primarily religious institutions. Like other
houses of worship, they can be maintained with individual donations. Look
to Los Angeles, where Cardinal Roger Mahoney raised more than $189 million
to build a new cathedral that opened in 2002.
The Bee cites other churches in the country that have received public
dollars for restoration in demanding that the state's Catholic missions
should be recipients of similar government largesse. The Bush
administration has unleashed a broad-based attack on the First Amendment
principle of church-state separation through its "faith-based" initiative.
The trend of funding religion with public dollars must be stopped. That's
why Americans United for Separation of Church and State has challenged in
federal court the California Missions Preservation Act.
The Bush administration's push for funding religion is eroding a
fundamental American principle. Those of us who believe in religious
liberty must resist this misguided drive.
The REV. BARRY W. LYNN, executive director, Americans United for Separation
of Church and State
Washington, D.C.
************************************************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
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 SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
For people in Hampton Roads you are also invited to join
NORFOLK/VA. B. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE MEETUP GROUP
http://churchandstate.meetup.com/47/
Virginia Chapter Americans United for Separation of Church and State
http://au-va.org/
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
This site is a member of the following web rings:
Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
American History WebRing--&--The History Ring
Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring
Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: NO taxpayer funds to fix Catholic missions |
06 Aug 2005 12:03:04 PM |
|
|
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
:|Basic reading skills are all it takes to deduce that the 1st and 10th
:|Amendments delegate the power to address religion exclusively to the
:|states. This makes more sense than trying to figure out how the
:|establishment clause leapfrogs the federal BOR's 1st Amendment's
:|prohibitions on Congress and extends these prohibitions to the states.
Here, try this on for size:
Amend. To improve. To change for the better by
removing defects or faults. To change, correct,
revise. See Amendment.
Amendment. To change or modify for the better.
To alter by modification, deletion, or addition.
SOURCE: Black's Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition Centennial Edition
(1891-1991) West Publishing (1991) p 52
*******************************************************************************
I said it was modified, not revoked. The 1st reads, "Congress shall
make no law ...". The 14th reads "No State shall make ... any law ..."
The 14th modifies the 1st to effectively read, "Congress and the
States shall make no law ..."
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 16:55:12 -0500
From: Josh Rosenbluth
*******************************************************************************
Fourteenth Amendment, Selective Incorporation
http://candst.tripod.com/14thamend.htm
********************************************************************************
To Understand the Tenth Amendment,
buckeye Jun 15 2001, 9:11 am
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.society.conservatism/msg/a50863c2e692ac27?hl=en&
181. buckeye-ELO Jul 13 2003, 2:16 pm
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/bf5b2bdbcdcc9fb0?hl=en&
182. buckeye-ELO Jul 14 2003, 7:00 am
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/8945e835be67a0e3?hl=en&
183. buckeye-ELO Jul 14 2003, 10:54 am
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/1f55d63333941522?hl=en&
184. buckeye-ELO Jul 15 2003, 10:56 am
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/d0fd56e9f4f41e8e?hl=en&
185. buckeye-ELO Jul 16 2003, 6:38 am
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/c19e50824a486b44?hl=en&
186. buckeye-ELO Jul 14 2003, 11:04 am
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/7451c2da7cff27cb?hl=en&
*****************************************************************************************************
I suggest that you distinguish between the rights, and the potential
violator of a right. Thus "freedom of speech" is a right. "Congress
shall make no law" refers to a possible violation of that right. The
problem is to identify the "right" in "no law respecting an
Establishment of religion" - the law would be an infringement of the
right. The right is that there be "no government respecting an
establishment of religion". The right has nothing to do with
Congress, and it is the right, not the 1st amendment, that the states
cannot infringe.
lojbab
***********************************************
Marshall made it clear way back in McCullogh vs Maryland about implied
powers:
http://www.constitution.org/ussc/017-316_.htm
There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States similar to
the Articles of Confederation, which exclude incidental or implied
powers.
If the end be legitimate, and within the scope of the Constitution,
all the means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to
that end, and which are not prohibited, may constitutionally be
employed to carry it into effect.
"Nathan A. Barclay" wrote
Further, the idea that anything that is not prohibited must be permitted is
in direct contradiction of the Tenth Amendment, and would render the Tenth
Amendment meaningless.
"Bob LeChevalier" wrote
The 10th IS virtually meaningless, other than as a restatement in
plain terms of basic constitutional philosophy.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment10/01.html
********************************************************************************
The concept of enumerated powers is a fallacious description of the
constitution, which provides powers in addition to those specifically
enumerated in one section of the constitution, in some cases rather
vaguely. For example, the 14th amendment provides that Congress shall
have the power to enforce said amendment. There are no restrictions
on how Congress may enforce that amendment EXCEPT that it may not
violate the stated and implied rights. So in that particular arena,
amendment has eliminated enumeration of powers. There are several
other statements of Congressional power that similar override the
enumerated power doctrine, some of which are in the unamended
constitution. Thus it cannot be said that the Founders consistently
adopted that doctrine as fundamental to the constitution.
The constitution similar enumerates specific rights in the Bill of
Rights, and then adds a clause saying that there are unenumerated
rights that have not been specified, in amendment 9. Again, there is
no complete and consistent and specific constitutional principle.
And that is reality, thereby trumping all ideologies that attempt to
state otherwise.
lojbab
*******************************************************************
Church state separation was embodied in the unamended Constitution.
Misunderstanding begins with not understanding that.
***************************************************************************************
The following was posted in a reply to someone one else but it helps to sum
this up here as well
Study Guide: Separation of Church and State - Indepth
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd0.htm
[excerpt]
The Beginning
Question:Separation of church and state, the principle, where can it be
found, or can it be found in the Constitution?
Answer: Directly, the unamended constitution, Article VI, Section III
" but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to
any office or public trust under the United States."
Then, indirectly the entire document (unamended constitution) as a whole.
(you will find "tons" of evidence of this in the above URLs as well as
below:
************************************************************************************
o Congressional Debates: Religious Amendments, 1789
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/1stdebat.htm
o James Madison And National Religion
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/madnational.htm
* Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses only Reinforced Separation of
Church and State.
o No Power to Congress Over Religion. The Separation Clause,
Article IV Paragraph III
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/art4piii.htm
o No Power to Congress over Religion: The "Elastic Clause" and
the 1st Amendment
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/nopower.htm
* Representative Thomas Tucker on Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/basic2a.htm
**************************************************************************
So the original principle of church state separation was embodied in the
unamended constitution.
That then was amended (see definitions for amendment above)
It was amended to this and for the reasons given:
Joint House/senate Language:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
(establishment, free exercise, back to broad)
Accepted.
What can be said with any degree of certainty?
We do know for sure that it was to prevent the later use of the
"necessary and proper" wording from being used as a doorway to make laws
regarding religion. We know that because Madison mentions that.
[ To close a real or imagined potential loophole-- it didn't create church
state separaiton it only reinforced it ]
We do know that it was to prevent a sects, denominations, religions
from combining and establishing religions, forcing others to go along with
the program. We know that again because Madison mentions it.
We know the obvious, that is it was meant to prevent the government
from establishing religion, a religion, a sect, a denomination as the
"official" religion of the nation.
We also know that Congress was prevented from making an law RESPECTING
an establishment of religion. We know that because those words were
eventually chosen to be used.
We know that several non preferential proposals were made and all lost
out to the more broad, less defined word establishment, but even that word
did have meaning that applied in this country.
"Of the eleven states that ratified the 1st Amendment, nine (counting
Maryland) adhered to the viewpoint that support of religion and churches
should be voluntary, that any government financial assistance to religion
constituted an establishment of religion."
Source of Information: The First Freedoms, Church and State in America to
the Passage of the First Amendment, by Thomas Curry, page 220.
*******************************************************************************************
Thus one has to read with understanding of the principle of separation that
was embodied in the unamended constitution and include that understanding
when the try to interpret the religious clauses of the 1st Amendment,
especially the "disestablishment" Clause.
This sums it up nicely:
Some Thoughts on Religion and Law, Written by Susan Batte, Esq.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/bthot-lr.htm
[excerpt]
1. The Constitution did not provide any mechanism for the establishment
of religion or for the support of religion.
2. Religious tests were the primary mechanism for perpetuating an
established church within the political structure.
3. The Constitution specifically prohibits religious tests or oaths for
office.
THEREFORE, the Constitution created the concept of Separation of Church and
State by providing nothing in the constitution that supports the idea that
Government as Government is allowed to support any religion for any reason
and by specifically prohibiting the primary political mechanism for
supporting religion.
The 1st Amendment may only be interpreted, as being consistent with the
Constitution and the views expressed in the Constitution concerning
religion because:
1. The 1st Amendment was drafted after the Constitution was ratified and
was not designated as repealing any provision in the Constitution.
2. The 1st Amendment does not provide any mechanism for establishing
religion.
3. The 1st Amendment does provide the mechanism to allow an individual
as an individual and not as government to exercise the religion of his or
her choice.
THEREFORE, the 1st Amendment cannot be interpreted to mean that some
governmental entities may support religion in some ways (i.e., vouchers,
welfare programs, etc.).
Once the 1st Amendment prohibited Congress from establishing religion by
prohibiting it from making any law respecting an establishment of religion
- Congress was thereby precluded from passing any kind of appropriation
bill to fund any religious enterprise.
In order for the above to be true, the interpretation of "establishment"
would have to be broad, and in fact the broad interpretation of
"establishment" is supported. First, the O.E.D. (Oxford English Dictionary)
sets out a 1561 definition of establishment as "a means of establishing;
something that strengthens, supports or corroborates. Into the 1700s -
1800s, "establishment" could be defined as "the establishing by law (a
church, religion, form of worship.) As an example, the O.E.D. sets out the
following: 1886 Earl Selborne De Ch. Eng. I. iv. 77 All such relations of
the Church to the State as those which are summed up in the term
'Establishment'.
Second, a broad interpretation of"establishment" is consistent with the
indefinite article that proceeds it. "An"'establishment of religion' refers
to all or any religious establishment --- not to one or some
establishments. In the absence of definiteness, the inclusion of "of one
Christian sect over another" after "Congress shall make no law respecting
an establishment" would be necessary if, as Mr. Barton argues, the 1st
Amendment was all about stamping out competing rivalries between Christian
sects.
In addition, the operative word in the Establishment Clause is RESPECTING.
Respecting an establishment of religion. Any religious institution, be it a
20 member country church or a huge multimillion member international
religion, is an establishment of religion. The government is forbidden from
making any laws, positive or negative that would pertain to an
establishment of religion.
The narrow definition of establishment is that the 1st Amendment meant only
to prevent a "State Church" from being officially sanctioned by the
Government. (In this way, some people have tried to argue that supporting
religious schools doesn't establish anything.) However, such a narrow
reading of "Establishment" would need specific language added to the
Amendment to support it since a plain language reading of the Constitution
clearly shows no bias for (or against) Christianity as opposed to any other
religion or even irreligion. And neither does the 1st Amendment.
I would be remiss if I did not point out that the 10th Amendment is not
implicated in the matter of funding religious schools. The 14th amendment
applies the establishment clause against states
****************************************************************************************
UNAMENDED CONSTITUTION
No religious tests, no religious oaths, could affirm, didn't have to swear,
breaking the traditional unions between church and state thus separating
church and state.
DISESTABLISHMENT
All of the above was amended (see definition for amend/amendment) to make
it very clear to reinforce the above by adding "Congress (now or future)
shall make no law (using the "elastic clause" respecting an establishment
of religion,. . . "
Thus we have:
No religious tests to hold office, no religious oaths, can affirm instead
of swear; Congress (now or future) shall make no law (using the "elastic
clause" respecting an establishment of religion,. . .
(Don't forget Madison had proposed one article that would limit the general
government and one that would limit the states. Both passed the House but
the one limiting the states was defeated in the Senate. So consider that
as well as you dwell on this)
*******************************************************************************
Fourteenth Amendment, Selective Incorporation
http://candst.tripod.com/14thamend.htm
[excerpt]
Ironically the First Fourteenth Amendment
On June 8, 1789 James Madison delivered his long awaited list of proposed
amendments to the House of Representatives. After several debates scattered
throughout the summer the following is a partial list of the amendments
that was passed by the House of Representative and sent on to the Senate.
Note especially Article the Fourteenth. That article, passed by the
necessary number of votes called for selective incorporation against the
state some of the other Articles. This particular article was defeated in
the Senate after secret debate and a secret vote. It must be remember at
this particular point in time in American History, the House of
Representative represented "the people." It's members were elected directly
by the people. The Senate, on the other hand, represented the states. It's
members were selected by the state legislatures.
It is ironic that this particular Article was numbered fourteen and that it
called for selective incorporation of other amendments in the "Bill of
Rights package" against the states. It is interesting that it was passed by
"the people's" representatives, but defeated by the state's
representatives. It is very ironic that another Article also numbered
fourteen was passed some 79 or so years later and that it would, in time be
used to selectively incorporate other Articles of the "Bill of Rights
package" against the states.
August 17, 1789-- First Federal Congress (Amendments)
The committee then proceeded to the fifth proposition:
Article I, Section 10 between the first and second paragraph, insert 'No
state shall infringe the equal rights of conscience, nor the freedom of
speech or of the press, nor of the right of trial by jury in criminal
cases.'
Mr. TUCKER this is offered, I presume, as an amendment to the constitution
of the United States, but it goes only to the alteration of constitutions
of particular states. It will be much better, I apprehend, to leave the
state governments to themselves, and not to interfere with them more than
we already do; and that is thought by many to be rather too much. I
therefore move, Sir, to strike out these words.
Mr. MADISON conceives this to be the most valuable amendment in the whole
list. If there were any reason to restrain the government of the United
States from infringing upon these essential rights, it was equally
necessary that they should be secured against the state governments. He
thought that if they provided against one, it was as necessary to provide
against the other, and it was satisfied that it would be equally grateful
to the people.
Mr. LIVERMORE had no great objection to the sentiment, but he thought it
not well expressed. He wished to make it an affirmative proposition; 'the
equal rights of conscience, the freedom of speech or of the press, and the
right of trial by jury in criminal cases, shall not be infringed by any
state.'
This transposition being agreed to, and MR. TUCKER'S motion being rejected,
the clause was adopted. (In the final wording of the amendments that was
sent to the Senate the transposition had not taken place. No reason for
that mistake is recorded.)
Source of Information: The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the
United States (Annals of Congress), Joseph Gales. Gales and Seaton,
Washington, 1834, August 17, 1789, Vol I pp 749-756.
***************************************************************************************
Now at a later date there was an additional amendment, that being the 14th
Amendment.
When applied to the "Disestablishment" Clause it alters the amendment to
say:
I said it was modified, not revoked. The 1st reads, "Congress shall
make no law ...". The 14th reads "No State shall make ... any law ..."
The 14th modifies the 1st to effectively read, "Congress and the
States shall make no law ..."
SOURCE: My thanks to Josh Rosenbluth for the above easy to understand
explanation;
***********************************************************************************
Not about the only other thing that might help you, that is provided you
really want to try and understand all this is the following:
Your "question" was
"Maybe you can show me a US statute that explicitly prohibits the States
from making law respecting the establishment of religion. That
is, can you show me how Congress has implemented the 14th by
explicitly :|prohibiting the States from making the kinds of laws
the 1st prohibits or Congress? "
To clear up your confusion and misunderstanding I offer the following:
No statute is required. We have the Constitution which is the ultimate
"statute."
We also have the fact that all branches of government "make law."
See the following if you really want to explore it
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3746425476d&dq=&hl=en &lr=&selm...
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J2B5512F9
or the following more direct:
Judge made law, all branches of govt make law
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3818571407d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm...
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J4C5212F9
and finally
The following is your answer. It covers the question, historically, legally
from several directions.
You will, of course, disagree and reject the following, but that is to be
expected.
**********************************************************************************************
Establishment Clause
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3111921277d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm...
http://makeashorterlink.com/?U2D5122F9
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.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 SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
For people in Hampton Roads you are also invited to join
NORFOLK/VA. B. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE MEETUP GROUP
http://churchandstate.meetup.com/47/
Virginia Chapter Americans United for Separation of Church and State
http://au-va.org/
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
This site is a member of the following web rings:
Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
American History WebRing--&--The History Ring
Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring
Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: NO taxpayer funds to fix Catholic missions |
08 Aug 2005 03:20:49 PM |
|
|
wrote:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
<snipped for brevity>
Source of Information: The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the
United States (Annals of Congress), Joseph Gales. Gales and Seaton,
Washington, 1834, August 17, 1789, Vol I pp 749-756.
***************************************************************************************
Now at a later date there was an additional amendment, that being the 14th
Amendment.
When applied to the "Disestablishment" Clause it alters the amendment to
say:
I said it was modified, not revoked. The 1st reads, "Congress shall
make no law ...". The 14th reads "No State shall make ... any law ..."
The 14th modifies the 1st to effectively read, "Congress and the
States shall make no law ..."
You are ignoring that, unlike the 1st Amendment which specifies the
kinds of laws that Congress cannot make, the 14th Amendment doesn't
specify what kinds of laws the states can't make. The 14th Amendment
merely generalizes that a given state law cannot make laws that abridge
the federal rights of its citizens. And what rights are abridged if a
state decides that the pros and cons of evolution and creationism can
be taught in its public schools, for example, especially if such
classes aren't mandatory?
The bottom line is that if more US citizens understood the relationship
between the 1st and 10th Amendment where the unique power of the states
to address religion is concerned, there would be hell to pay with
respect the unconstitutional restrictions that the federal judicial
system is now imposing on the states with respect to the full enjoyment
of our constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religious expression.
This essay explains the relationship between the 1st and 10th
Amendments were the government's power to address religion is
concerned:
http://www.renewamerica.us/readings/keyes_essay.htm
Finally, section 1 of the 14th Amendment does protect us from bully
pulpit preachers who think they can use the power of the states to
address religion to force their religious beliefs down everybody's
throat. So the current emphasis of activist judges, atheists and
separationists on the establishment clause - rather, what these people
are wrongly reading into the establishment clause - amounts to nothing
but tunnel-vision paranoia.
SOURCE: My thanks to Josh Rosenbluth for the above easy to understand
explanation;
***********************************************************************************
Not about the only other thing that might help you, that is provided you
really want to try and understand all this is the following:
Your "question" was
"Maybe you can show me a US statute that explicitly prohibits the States
<snipped for brevity>
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Native American" |
|
| Title: Re: NO taxpayer funds to fix Catholic missions |
03 Aug 2005 08:11:51 AM |
|
|
--
If there were a goofy cult that prescribed eating your own excrement,
liberals would ponder its
deeper meaning and treat it with respect.
--Ann Coulter
<buckeyeelo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:b0d1f1t6tppq2fadh6hbno8tljbe8865pb@4ax.com...
Taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize religion.
Nor should taxpayers be forced to subsidize Atheism.
End the teaching of Evolution Theory in our schools, NOW!!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "ouroboros rex" |
|
| Title: Re: NO taxpayer funds to fix Catholic missions |
03 Aug 2005 09:39:23 AM |
|
|
"Native American" <NativeAmerican@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ro3Ie.153$RZ2.58@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
--
If there were a goofy cult that prescribed eating your own excrement,
liberals would ponder its
deeper meaning and treat it with respect.
--Ann Coulter
<buckeyeelo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:b0d1f1t6tppq2fadh6hbno8tljbe8865pb@4ax.com...
Taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize religion.
Nor should taxpayers be forced to subsidize Atheism.
End the teaching of Evolution Theory in our schools, NOW!!!
roflmmfao
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: NO taxpayer funds to fix Catholic missions |
03 Aug 2005 11:06:53 AM |
|
|
"Native American" <NativeAmerican@earthlink.net> wrote:
<buckeyeelo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:b0d1f1t6tppq2fadh6hbno8tljbe8865pb@4ax.com...
Taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize religion.
Nor should taxpayers be forced to subsidize Atheism.
End the teaching of Evolution Theory in our schools, NOW!!!
The theory of evolution is science, not religion. A large number of
theists (including myself) have no problem with evolutionary theory,
or in fact any other sort of scientific result.
Science does not deny God, which is what atheism is. Science simply
ignores God.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Native American" |
|
| Title: Re: NO taxpayer funds to fix Catholic missions |
03 Aug 2005 11:08:09 AM |
|
|
--
"I'll pick people who one, can do the job; people who are honest, people who
are bright; and people who will strictly interpret the Constitution and not
use the bench to legislate from. That's what I campaigned on, and that's
what I'm going to do."
- President Bush
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:coq1f11ja0hf6v7viavi6ru51agt50bv8u@4ax.com...
"Native American" <NativeAmerican@earthlink.net> wrote:
<buckeyeelo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:b0d1f1t6tppq2fadh6hbno8tljbe8865pb@4ax.com...
Taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize religion.
Nor should taxpayers be forced to subsidize Atheism.
End the teaching of Evolution Theory in our schools, NOW!!!
The theory of evolution is science, not religion.
No, it's a faith theory. It is the faith belief that Human Life somehow
"evolved" from lower life forms.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ouroboros rex" |
|
| Title: Re: NO taxpayer funds to fix Catholic missions |
03 Aug 2005 12:08:00 PM |
|
|
"Native American" <NativeAmerican@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:JZ5Ie.102$WD.73@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
--
"I'll pick people who one, can do the job; people who are honest, people
who are bright; and people who will strictly interpret the Constitution
and not use the bench to legislate from. That's what I campaigned on, and
that's what I'm going to do."
- President Bush
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:coq1f11ja0hf6v7viavi6ru51agt50bv8u@4ax.com...
"Native American" <NativeAmerican@earthlink.net> wrote:
<buckeyeelo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:b0d1f1t6tppq2fadh6hbno8tljbe8865pb@4ax.com...
Taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize religion.
Nor should taxpayers be forced to subsidize Atheism.
End the teaching of Evolution Theory in our schools, NOW!!!
The theory of evolution is science, not religion.
No, it's a faith theory. It is the faith belief that Human Life somehow
"evolved" from lower life forms.
roflmmfao
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: NO taxpayer funds to fix Catholic missions |
03 Aug 2005 11:45:33 AM |
|
|
"Native American" <NativeAmerican@earthlink.net> wrote:
Nor should taxpayers be forced to subsidize Atheism.
End the teaching of Evolution Theory in our schools, NOW!!!
The theory of evolution is science, not religion.
No, it's a faith theory. It is the faith belief that Human Life somehow
"evolved" from lower life forms.
The theory of evolution is not specifically about human life, but
about life in general. It is a scientific theory, and has nothing to
do with faith.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Native American" |
|
| Title: Re: NO taxpayer funds to fix Catholic missions |
03 Aug 2005 05:01:03 PM |
|
|
--
"I'll pick people who one, can do the job; people who are honest, people who
are bright; and people who will strictly interpret the Constitution and not
use the bench to legislate from. That's what I campaigned on, and that's
what I'm going to do."
- President Bush
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:i3t1f1pfju1gqq1q0r1cecb94pjqr5luab@4ax.com...
"Native American" <NativeAmerican@earthlink.net> wrote:
Nor should taxpayers be forced to subsidize Atheism.
End the teaching of Evolution Theory in our schools, NOW!!!
The theory of evolution is science, not religion.
No, it's a faith theory. It is the faith belief that Human Life somehow
"evolved" from lower life forms.
The theory of evolution is not specifically about human life, but
about life in general. It is a scientific theory, and has nothing to
do with faith.
No, it is a *theory*, BASED on faith beliefs.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: NO taxpayer funds to fix Catholic missions |
03 Aug 2005 11:31:18 PM |
|
|
"Native American" <NativeAmerican@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Native American" <NativeAmerican@earthlink.net> wrote:
Nor should taxpayers be forced to subsidize Atheism.
End the teaching of Evolution Theory in our schools, NOW!!!
The theory of evolution is science, not religion.
No, it's a faith theory. It is the faith belief that Human Life somehow
"evolved" from lower life forms.
The theory of evolution is not specifically about human life, but
about life in general. It is a scientific theory, and has nothing to
do with faith.
No, it is a *theory*, BASED on faith beliefs.
Your ignorant opinion is noted, and worthless. Your statement says
that you probably don't even know what a "theory" is, in science.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: NO taxpayer funds to fix Catholic missions |
04 Aug 2005 03:59:09 PM |
|
|
In article <z8bIe.228$Wi6.149@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> "Native American" <NativeAmerican@earthlink.net> writes:
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message news:i3t1f1pfju1gqq1q0r1cecb94pjqr5luab@4ax.com...
"Native American" <NativeAmerican@earthlink.net> wrote:
Nor should taxpayers be forced to subsidize Atheism.
End the teaching of Evolution Theory in our schools, NOW!!!
The theory of evolution is science, not religion.
No, it's a faith theory. It is the faith belief that Human Life somehow
"evolved" from lower life forms.
The theory of evolution is not specifically about human life, but
about life in general. It is a scientific theory, and has nothing to
do with faith.
No, it is a *theory*, BASED on faith beliefs.
Actually what it is, is a concept. A concept which in practice has
been found to make sense of an enormous number of otherwise chaotic
observations from emybrology, developmental biology, comparative anatomy,
ethology, genetics, taxonomy, paleontology, population genetics,
gross physiology, molecular biology, cell physiology, and a wide
range of other biological fields.
In other words, it's a tool which has been found to be
of enormous utility to biologists.
If you want to teach biology, then you teach what has been
found useful to biologists.
Genesis is of no use in the practice of biology.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bama Brian" |
|
| Title: Re: NO taxpayer funds to fix Catholic missions |
04 Aug 2005 11:37:01 AM |
|
|
Native American wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:i3t1f1pfju1gqq1q0r1cecb94pjqr5luab@4ax.com...
"Native American" <NativeAmerican@earthlink.net> wrote:
Nor should taxpayers be forced to subsidize Atheism.
End the teaching of Evolution Theory in our schools, NOW!!!
The theory of evolution is science, not religion.
No, it's a faith theory. It is the faith belief that Human Life
somehow
"evolved" from lower life forms.
The theory of evolution is not specifically about human life, but
about life in general. It is a scientific theory, and has nothing to
do with faith.
No, it is a *theory*, BASED on faith beliefs.
Here's the definition of *theory" from www.dictionary.com:
the·o·ry Audio pronunciation of "theory" ( P ) Pronunciation Key
(th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of
facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is
widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory
statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to
practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch
of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience
rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension
or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually
return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a
conjecture.
NA, you want to believe that a *theory* is only definition number 6;
instead, it is definitions 1, 2, and 3 that are used in science.
FYI, there are also *theories* of electricity and gravity - but ignoring
them can get you a Darwin Award.
--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana, "The Life of Reason", vol. 1, 1905
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: NO taxpayer funds to fix Catholic missions |
03 Aug 2005 08:53:57 PM |
|
|
Native American wrote:
--
"I'll pick people who one, can do the job; people who are honest, people who
are bright; and people who will strictly interpret the Constitution and not
use the bench to legislate from. That's what I campaigned on, and that's
what I'm going to do."
- President Bush
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:i3t1f1pfju1gqq1q0r1cecb94pjqr5luab@4ax.com...
"Native American" <NativeAmerican@earthlink.net> wrote:
Nor should taxpayers be forced to subsidize Atheism.
End the teaching of Evolution Theory in our schools, NOW!!!
The theory of evolution is science, not religion.
No, it's a faith theory. It is the faith belief that Human Life somehow
"evolved" from lower life forms.
The theory of evolution is not specifically about human life, but
about life in general. It is a scientific theory, and has nothing to
do with faith.
No, it is a *theory*, BASED on faith beliefs.
LOL! To lend badly needed credibility to your goofy,
evidence-free assertions try stomping your foot.j
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: NO taxpayer funds to fix Catholic missions |
03 Aug 2005 08:47:02 PM |
|
|
Naive American wrote:
--
"I'll pick people who one, can do the job; people who are honest, people who
are bright; and people who will strictly interpret the Constitution and not
use the bench to legislate from. That's what I campaigned on, an d that's
what I'm going to do."
- President Bush
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:coq1f11ja0hf6v7viavi6ru51agt50bv8u@4ax.com...
"Naive American" <NativeAmerican@earthlink.net> wrote:
<buckeyeelo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:b0d1f1t6tppq2fadh6hbno8tljbe8865pb@4ax.com...
Taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize religion.
Nor should taxpayers be forced to subsidize Atheism.
End the teaching of Evolution Theory in our schools, NOW!!!
The theory of evolution is science, not religion.
No, it's a faith theory.
Are you always so stupid or is today a special occasion?
It is the faith belief that Human Life somehow
"evolved" from lower life forms.
What is amusing is that you think your hot-air
assertions actually carried some weight. g
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bama Brian" |
|
| Title: Re: NO taxpayer funds to fix Catholic missions |
04 Aug 2005 11:28:36 AM |
|
|
Native American wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:coq1f11ja0hf6v7viavi6ru51agt50bv8u@4ax.com...
"Native American" <NativeAmerican@earthlink.net> wrote:
<buckeyeelo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:b0d1f1t6tppq2fadh6hbno8tljbe8865pb@4ax.com...
Taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize religion.
Nor should taxpayers be forced to subsidize Atheism.
End the teaching of Evolution Theory in our schools, NOW!!!
The theory of evolution is science, not religion.
No, it's a faith theory. It is the faith belief that Human Life
somehow "evolved" from lower life forms.
Let's conjugate the verb "to know" shall we?
I know.
You believe.
He is superstitious.
NA, your belief that evolution is a "faith" belief is, itself, a faith
belief.
There is a wealth of good evidence for evolution; there is NONE but a
belief for either Intelligent Design or Creationism.
--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana, "The Life of Reason", vol. 1, 1905
.
|
|
|
| User: "Icarus" |
|
| Title: Re: NO taxpayer funds to fix Catholic missions |
04 Aug 2005 12:14:07 PM |
|
|
Bama Brian wrote:
There is a wealth of good evidence for evolution; there is NONE but a
belief for either Intelligent Design or Creationism.
Not only that, they're based on the illogical reasoning that nothing can
exist uncreated, and therefore everything must have been created by
something uncreated.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: NO taxpayer funds to fix Catholic missions |
04 Aug 2005 01:29:34 PM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"Native American" <NativeAmerican@earthlink.net> wrote:
<buckeyeelo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:b0d1f1t6tppq2fadh6hbno8tljbe8865pb@4ax.com...
Taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize religion.
Nor shou ld taxpayers be forced to subsidize Atheism.
End the teaching of Evolution Theory in our schools, NOW!!!
The theory of evolution is science, not religion. A large number of
theists (including myself) have no problem with evolutionary theor y,
or in fact any other sort of scientific result.
Science does not deny God, which is what atheism is.
Which is what atheism is? Is what? Science? God?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: NO taxpayer funds to fix Catholic missions |
03 Aug 2005 11:48:35 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 12:06:53 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
<lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
"Native American" <NativeAmerican@earthlink.net> wrote:
<buckeyeelo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:b0d1f1t6tppq2fadh6hbno8tljbe8865pb@4ax.com...
Taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize religion.
Nor should taxpayers be forced to subsidize Atheism.
End the teaching of Evolution Theory in our schools, NOW!!!
The theory of evolution is science, not religion. A large number of
theists (including myself) have no problem with evolutionary theory,
or in fact any other sort of scientific result.
Science does not deny God, which is what atheism is. Science simply
ignores God.
Atheism doesn't deny god. That is an emotionally prejudicial
misrepresentation that makes the invalid presumpttion that we have
anything to deny.
God is part of the theist's paradigm. That's all.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: NO taxpayer funds to fix Catholic missions |
03 Aug 2005 09:15:52 AM |
|
|
Naive American wrote:
--
If there were a goofy cult that prescribed eating your own excrement,
liberals would ponder its
deeper meaning and treat it with respect.
--Ann Coulter
She is talking about Christianity:
And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it
with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight. And the
LORD said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their
defiled bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive them.
-Ezekiel 4:12-13
But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy
master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me
to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own
dung, and drink their own ***** with you? -II Kings 18:27
<buckey eelo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:b0d1f1t6tppq2fadh6hbno8tljbe8865pb@4ax.com...
Taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize religion.
Nor should taxpayers be forced to subsidize Atheism.
They aren't.
End the teaching of Evolutio n Theory in our schools, NOW!!!
You don't even know what evolution is, dufus.=20
=E2=E2
.
|
|
|
| User: "KenStahl" |
|
| Title: Re: NO taxpayer funds to fix Catholic missions |
03 Aug 2005 12:26:42 PM |
|
|
wrote:
You don't even know what evolution is, dufus.
ââ
We're talking about Naive Un-American here. It isn't as if
he is the brightest bulb on the tree.
--
Blogging at http://HexagonalPeg.blogspot.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "KenStahl" |
|
| Title: Re: NO taxpayer funds to fix Catholic missions |
03 Aug 2005 12:25:31 PM |
|
|
Native American wrote:
Nor should taxpayers be forced to subsidize Atheism.
End the teaching of Evolution Theory in our schools, NOW!!!
No. Of course not. The truth should be taught, not religious
mumbo-jumbo.
--
Blogging at http://HexagonalPeg.blogspot.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Auntie Lib" |
|
| Title: Re: NO taxpayer funds to fix Catholic missions |
03 Aug 2005 01:26:25 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Don't use taxpayer funds to fix Catholic missions
Last Updated: August 1, 2005, 05:10:56 AM PDT
The Bee's support of public financing for upkeep of California's Roman
Catholic missions ("Don't let contrived concerns leave historic missions to
decay," July 25, Page B-6) skirts the core church-state issues involved.
The government is out of line when it forces citizens to pay for repairs at
the state's 21 missions, 19 of which are still owned by the Catholic Church
and used for worship.
As a Californian, I was all for maintaining the missions as historic
sites but the information that most of them are owned by the Catholic
Church and still used as places of worship changes my opinion. I don't
want to "support" the Catholic Church. (As if they need it, anyway.
They're richer than "God"!)
Thanks for the article.
elizabeth
aa#2098
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"I was born with a skeptical mind. Now I ask you, is that fair?
If God gives me a skeptical nature and you an accepting one, then
you're going to be a believer and I'm not. If belief is a ticket to
eternal happiness, I'm definitely handicapped. God gives me a mind
capable of asking questions and what? I'm damned if I use it?"
F. Paul Wilson "The Haunted Air"
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: NO taxpayer funds to fix Catholic missions |
03 Aug 2005 07:43:22 PM |
|
|
wrote:
http://www.modbee.com/opinion/letters/story/11009149p-11770946c.html
Don't use taxpayer funds to fix Catholic missions
Last Updated: August 1, 2005, 05:10:56 AM PDT
The Bee's support of public financing for upkeep of California's Roman
Catholic missions ("Don't let contrived concerns leave historic missions =
to
decay," July 25, Page B-6) skirts the core church-state issues involved.
The government is out of line when it forces citizens to pay for repairs =
at
the state's 21 missions, 19 of which are still owned by the Catholic Chur=
ch
and used for worship.
Taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize religion. These missions are
historic, but they are still primarily religious institutions. Like other
houses of worship, they can be maintained with individual donations. Look
to Los Angeles, where Cardinal Roger Mahoney raised more than $189 million
to build a new cathedral that opened in 2002.
Will you please clarify what you mean when you say that taxpayers
should not be forced to subsidize religion? I believe that missions
are as much entitled to receive upkeep funding as any historical
buildings are. However, I also agree that you should have the
satisfaction that your tax dollars aren't spent on things that you do
not believe in:
"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation
of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical."
--Thomas Jefferson: Bill for Religious Freedom, 1779. Papers 2:545
Maybe the solution is a tax credit for taxpayers who choose to donate
their money for the upkeep of things like missions?
The Bee cites other churches in the country that have received public
dollars for restoration in demanding that the state's Catholic missions
should be recipients of similar government largesse. The Bush
administration has unleashed a broad-based attack on the First Amendment
principle of church-state separation through its "faith-based" initiative.
The trend of funding religion with public dollars must be stopped. That's
why Americans United for Separation of Church and State has challenged in
federal court the California Missions Preservation Act.
Again, you're ignoring that the 1st and 10th Amendments of the federal
BOR delegate certain powers exclusively to the states, including the
power to address religion:
http://www.renewamerica.us/readings/keyes_essay.htm
The Bush administration's push for funding religion is eroding a
fundamental American principle. Those of us who believe in religious
liberty must resist this misguided drive.
The REV. BARRY W. LYNN, executive director, Americans United for Separati=
on
of Church and State
Washington, D.C.
*************************************************************************=
***********************
You are invited to check out the following:
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 SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
For people in Hampton Roads you are also invited to join
NORFOLK/VA. B. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE MEETUP GROUP
http://churchandstate.meetup.com/47/
Virginia Chapter Americans United for Separation of Church and State
http://au-va.org/
***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why =
"a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisne=
r,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
This site is a member of the following web rings:
Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
American History WebRing--&--The History Ring
Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring
Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring
=20
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: NO taxpayer funds to fix Catholic missions |
06 Aug 2005 06:17:13 AM |
|
|
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
:|buckeyeelo@nospam.net wrote:
:|> http://www.modbee.com/opinion/letters/story/11009149p-11770946c.html
:|>
:|> Don't use taxpayer funds to fix Catholic missions
:|>
:|> Last Updated: August 1, 2005, 05:10:56 AM PDT
:|>
:|> The Bee's support of public financing for upkeep of California's Roman
:|> Catholic missions ("Don't let contrived concerns leave historic missions to
:|> decay," July 25, Page B-6) skirts the core church-state issues involved.
:|> The government is out of line when it forces citizens to pay for repairs at
:|> the state's 21 missions, 19 of which are still owned by the Catholic Church
:|> and used for worship.
:|>
:|> Taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize religion. These missions are
:|> historic, but they are still primarily religious institutions. Like other
:|> houses of worship, they can be maintained with individual donations. Look
:|> to Los Angeles, where Cardinal Roger Mahoney raised more than $189 million
:|> to build a new cathedral that opened in 2002.
:|> The Bee cites other churches in the country that have received public
:|> dollars for restoration in demanding that the state's Catholic missions
:|> should be recipients of similar government largesse. The Bush
:|> administration has unleashed a broad-based attack on the First Amendment
:|> principle of church-state separation through its "faith-based" initiative.
:|> The trend of funding religion with public dollars must be stopped. That's
:|> why Americans United for Separation of Church and State has challenged in
:|> federal court the California Missions Preservation Act.
:|> The Bush administration's push for funding religion is eroding a
:|> fundamental American principle. Those of us who believe in religious
:|> liberty must resist this misguided drive.
:|> The REV. BARRY W. LYNN, executive director, Americans United for Separation
:|> of Church and State
:|> Washington, D.C.
:|Will you please clarify what you mean when you say that taxpayers
:|should not be forced to subsidize religion?
"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation
of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical."
--Thomas Jefferson: Bill for Religious Freedom, 1779. Papers 2:545
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats/msg/6061c45cb97afc1d?hl=en&
[excerpt'
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to 1968 and Flast v Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968) taxpayers did not have
a right to challenge how the government spent tax monies in federal courts.
In Flast v Cohen, the court ruled that if it could be shown that one
portion of the constitution (taxing and spending powers) was being used to
violate another portion (Establishment clause) then that act would be
unconstitutional.
" Our history vividly illustrates that one of the specific evils feared by
those who drafted the Establishment clause. . . was that the taxing and
spending power would be used to favor one religion over another or to
support religion in general." Flast v Cohen.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AND IN ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE ADJUDICATION IN PARTICULAR
************************************
RULES:
************************************
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.
************************************
:|
:|Again, you're ignoring that the 1st and 10th Amendments of the federal
:|BOR delegate certain powers exclusively to the states, including the
:|power to address religion:
Here, try this on for size:
Amend. To improve. To change for the better by
removing defects or faults. To change, correct,
revise. See Amendment.
Amendment. To change or modify for the better.
To alter by modification, deletion, or addition.
SOURCE: Black's Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition Centennial Edition
(1891-1991) West Publishing (1991) p 52
*******************************************************************************
I said it was modified, not revoked. The 1st reads, "Congress shall
make no law ...". The 14th reads "No State shall make ... any law ..."
The 14th modifies the 1st to effectively read, "Congress and the
States shall make no law ..."
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 16:55:12 -0500
From: Josh Rosenbluth
*******************************************************************************
Fourteenth Amendment, Selective Incorporation
http://candst.tripod.com/14thamend.htm
********************************************************************************
To Understand the Tenth Amendment,
buckeye Jun 15 2001, 9:11 am
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.society.conservatism/msg/a50863c2e692ac27?hl=en&
181. buckeye-ELO Jul 13 2003, 2:16 pm
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/bf5b2bdbcdcc9fb0?hl=en&
182. buckeye-ELO Jul 14 2003, 7:00 am
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/8945e835be67a0e3?hl=en&
183. buckeye-ELO Jul 14 2003, 10:54 am
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/1f55d63333941522?hl=en&
184. buckeye-ELO Jul 15 2003, 10:56 am
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/d0fd56e9f4f41e8e?hl=en&
185. buckeye-ELO Jul 16 2003, 6:38 am
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/c19e50824a486b44?hl=en&
186. buckeye-ELO Jul 14 2003, 11:04 am
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/7451c2da7cff27cb?hl=en&
*****************************************************************************************************
I suggest that you distinguish between the rights, and the potential
violator of a right. Thus "freedom of speech" is a right. "Congress
shall make no law" refers to a possible violation of that right. The
problem is to identify the "right" in "no law respecting an
Establishment of religion" - the law would be an infringement of the
right. The right is that there be "no government respecting an
establishment of religion". The right has nothing to do with
Congress, and it is the right, not the 1st amendment, that the states
cannot infringe.
lojbab
***********************************************
Marshall made it clear way back in McCullogh vs Maryland about implied
powers:
http://www.constitution.org/ussc/017-316_.htm
There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States similar to
the Articles of Confederation, which exclude incidental or implied
powers.
If the end be legitimate, and within the scope of the Constitution,
all the means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to
that end, and which are not prohibited, may constitutionally be
employed to carry it into effect.
"Nathan A. Barclay" wrote
Further, the idea that anything that is not prohibited must be permitted is
in direct contradiction of the Tenth Amendment, and would render the Tenth
Amendment meaningless.
"Bob LeChevalier" wrote
The 10th IS virtually meaningless, other than as a restatement in
plain terms of basic constitutional philosophy.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment10/01.html
********************************************************************************
The concept of enumerated powers is a fallacious description of the
constitution, which provides powers in addition to those specifically
enumerated in one section of the constitution, in some cases rather
vaguely. For example, the 14th amendment provides that Congress shall
have the power to enforce said amendment. There are no restrictions
on how Congress may enforce that amendment EXCEPT that it may not
violate the stated and implied rights. So in that particular arena,
amendment has eliminated enumeration of powers. There are several
other statements of Congressional power that similar override the
enumerated power doctrine, some of which are in the unamended
constitution. Thus it cannot be said that the Founders consistently
adopted that doctrine as fundamental to the constitution.
The constitution similar enumerates specific rights in the Bill of
Rights, and then adds a clause saying that there are unenumerated
rights that have not been specified, in amendment 9. Again, there is
no complete and consistent and specific constitutional principle.
And that is reality, thereby trumping all ideologies that attempt to
state otherwise.
lojbab
*******************************************************************
Church state separation was embodied in the unamended Constitution.
Misunderstanding begins with not understanding that.
***************************************************************************************
The following was posted in a reply to someone one else but it helps to sum
this up here as well
Study Guide: Separation of Church and State - Indepth
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd0.htm
[excerpt]
The Beginning
Question:Separation of church and state, the principle, where can it be
found, or can it be found in the Constitution?
Answer: Directly, the unamended constitution, Article VI, Section III
" but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to
any office or public trust under the United States."
Then, indirectly the entire document (unamended constitution) as a whole.
(you will find "tons" of evidence of this in the above URLs as well as
below:
************************************************************************************
o Congressional Debates: Religious Amendments, 1789
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/1stdebat.htm
o James Madison And National Religion
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/madnational.htm
* Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses only Reinforced Separation of
Church and State.
o No Power to Congress Over Religion. The Separation Clause,
Article IV Paragraph III
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/art4piii.htm
o No Power to Congress over Religion: The "Elastic Clause" and
the 1st Amendment
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/nopower.htm
* Representative Thomas Tucker on Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/basic2a.htm
**************************************************************************
So the original principle of church state separation was embodied in the
unamended constitution.
That then was amended (see definitions for amendment above)
It was amended to this and for the reasons given:
Joint House/senate Language:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
(establishment, free exercise, back to broad)
Accepted.
What can be said with any degree of certainty?
We do know for sure that it was to prevent the later use of the
"necessary and proper" wording from being used as a doorway to make laws
regarding religion. We know that because Madison mentions that.
[ To close a real or imagined potential loophole-- it didn't create church
state separaiton it only reinforced it ]
We do know that it was to prevent a sects, denominations, religions
from combining and establishing religions, forcing others to go along with
the program. We know that again because Madison mentions it.
We know the obvious, that is it was meant to prevent the government
from establishing religion, a religion, a sect, a denomination as the
"official" religion of the nation.
We also know that Congress was prevented from making an law RESPECTING
an establishment of religion. We know that because those words were
eventually chosen to be used.
We know that several non preferential proposals were made and all lost
out to the more broad, less defined word establishment, but even that word
did have meaning that applied in this country.
"Of the eleven states that ratified the 1st Amendment, nine (counting
Maryland) adhered to the viewpoint that support of religion and churches
should be voluntary, that any government financial assistance to religion
constituted an establishment of religion."
Source of Information: The First Freedoms, Church and State in America to
the Passage of the First Amendment, by Thomas Curry, page 220.
*******************************************************************************************
Thus one has to read with understanding of the principle of separation that
was embodied in the unamended constitution and include that understanding
when the try to interpret the religious clauses of the 1st Amendment,
especially the "disestablishment" Clause.
This sums it up nicely:
Some Thoughts on Religion and Law, Written by Susan Batte, Esq.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/bthot-lr.htm
[excerpt]
1. The Constitution did not provide any mechanism for the establishment
of religion or for the support of religion.
2. Religious tests were the primary mechanism for perpetuating an
established church within the political structure.
3. The Constitution specifically prohibits religious tests or oaths for
office.
THEREFORE, the Constitution created the concept of Separation of Church and
State by providing nothing in the constitution that supports the idea that
Government as Government is allowed to support any religion for any reason
and by specifically prohibiting the primary political mechanism for
supporting religion.
The 1st Amendment may only be interpreted, as being consistent with the
Constitution and the views expressed in the Constitution concerning
religion because:
1. The 1st Amendment was drafted after the Constitution was ratified and
was not designated as repealing any provision in the Constitution.
2. The 1st Amendment does not provide any mechanism for establishing
religion.
3. The 1st Amendment does provide the mechanism to allow an individual
as an individual and not as government to exercise the religion of his or
her choice.
THEREFORE, the 1st Amendment cannot be interpreted to mean that some
governmental entities may support religion in some ways (i.e., vouchers,
welfare programs, etc.).
Once the 1st Amendment prohibited Congress from establishing religion by
prohibiting it from making any law respecting an establishment of religion
- Congress was thereby precluded from passing any kind of appropriation
bill to fund any religious enterprise.
In order for the above to be true, the interpretation of "establishment"
would have to be broad, and in fact the broad interpretation of
"establishment" is supported. First, the O.E.D. (Oxford English Dictionary)
sets out a 1561 definition of establishment as "a means of establishing;
something that strengthens, supports or corroborates. Into the 1700s -
1800s, "establishment" could be defined as "the establishing by law (a
church, religion, form of worship.) As an example, the O.E.D. sets out the
following: 1886 Earl Selborne De Ch. Eng. I. iv. 77 All such relations of
the Church to the State as those which are summed up in the term
'Establishment'.
Second, a broad interpretation of"establishment" is consistent with the
indefinite article that proceeds it. "An"'establishment of religion' refers
to all or any religious establishment --- not to one or some
establishments. In the absence of definiteness, the inclusion of "of one
Christian sect over another" after "Congress shall make no law respecting
an establishment" would be necessary if, as Mr. Barton argues, the 1st
Amendment was all about stamping out competing rivalries between Christian
sects.
In addition, the operative word in the Establishment Clause is RESPECTING.
Respecting an establishment of religion. Any religious institution, be it a
20 member country church or a huge multimillion member international
religion, is an establishment of religion. The government is forbidden from
making any laws, positive or negative that would pertain to an
establishment of religion.
The narrow definition of establishment is that the 1st Amendment meant only
to prevent a "State Church" from being officially sanctioned by the
Government. (In this way, some people have tried to argue that supporting
religious schools doesn't establish anything.) However, such a narrow
reading of "Establishment" would need specific language added to the
Amendment to support it since a plain language reading of the Constitution
clearly shows no bias for (or against) Christianity as opposed to any other
religion or even irreligion. And neither does the 1st Amendment.
I would be remiss if I did not point out that the 10th Amendment is not
implicated in the matter of funding religious schools. The 14th amendment
applies the establishment clause against states
****************************************************************************************
UNAMENDED CONSTITUTION
No religious tests, no religious oaths, could affirm, didn't have to swear,
breaking the traditional unions between church and state thus separating
church and state.
DISESTABLISHMENT
All of the above was amended (see definition for amend/amendment) to make
it very clear to reinforce the above by adding "Congress (now or future)
shall make no law (using the "elastic clause" respecting an establishment
of religion,. . . "
Thus we have:
No religious tests to hold office, no religious oaths, can affirm instead
of swear; Congress (now or future) shall make no law (using the "elastic
clause" respecting an establishment of religion,. . .
(Don't forget Madison had proposed one article that would limit the general
government and one that would limit the states. Both passed the House but
the one limiting the states was defeated in the Senate. So consider that
as well as you dwell on this)
*******************************************************************************
Fourteenth Amendment, Selective Incorporation
http://candst.tripod.com/14thamend.htm
[excerpt]
Ironically the First Fourteenth Amendment
On June 8, 1789 James Madison delivered his long awaited list of proposed
amendments to the House of Representatives. After several debates scattered
throughout the summer the following is a partial list of the amendments
that was passed by the House of Representative and sent on to the Senate.
Note especially Article the Fourteenth. That article, passed by the
necessary number of votes called for selective incorporation against the
state some of the other Articles. This particular article was defeated in
the Senate after secret debate and a secret vote. It must be remember at
this particular point in time in American History, the House of
Representative represented "the people." It's members were elected directly
by the people. The Senate, on the other hand, represented the states. It's
members were selected by the state legislatures.
It is ironic that this particular Article was numbered fourteen and that it
called for selective incorporation of other amendments in the "Bill of
Rights package" against the states. It is interesting that it was passed by
"the people's" representatives, but defeated by the state's
representatives. It is very ironic that another Article also numbered
fourteen was passed some 79 or so years later and that it would, in time be
used to selectively incorporate other Articles of the "Bill of Rights
package" against the states.
August 17, 1789-- First Federal Congress (Amendments)
The committee then proceeded to the fifth proposition:
Article I, Section 10 between the first and second paragraph, insert 'No
state shall infringe the equal rights of conscience, nor the freedom of
speech or of the press, nor of the right of trial by jury in criminal
cases.'
Mr. TUCKER this is offered, I presume, as an amendment to the constitution
of the United States, but it goes only to the alteration of constitutions
of particular states. It will be much better, I apprehend, to leave the
state governments to themselves, and not to interfere with them more than
we already do; and that is thought by many to be rather too much. I
therefore move, Sir, to strike out these words.
Mr. MADISON conceives this to be the most valuable amendment in the whole
list. If there were any reason to restrain the government of the United
States from infringing upon these essential rights, it was equally
necessary that they should be secured against the state governments. He
thought that if they provided against one, it was as necessary to provide
against the other, and it was satisfied that it would be equally grateful
to the people.
Mr. LIVERMORE had no great objection to the sentiment, but he thought it
not well expressed. He wished to make it an affirmative proposition; 'the
equal rights of conscience, the freedom of speech or of the press, and the
right of trial by jury in criminal cases, shall not be infringed by any
state.'
This transposition being agreed to, and MR. TUCKER'S motion being rejected,
the clause was adopted. (In the final wording of the amendments that was
sent to the Senate the transposition had not taken place. No reason for
that mistake is recorded.)
Source of Information: The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the
United States (Annals of Congress), Joseph Gales. Gales and Seaton,
Washington, 1834, August 17, 1789, Vol I pp 749-756.
***************************************************************************************
Now at a later date there was an additional amendment, that being the 14th
Amendment.
When applied to the "Disestablishment" Clause it alters the amendment to
say:
I said it was modified, not revoked. The 1st reads, "Congress shall
make no law ...". The 14th reads "No State shall make ... any law ..."
The 14th modifies the 1st to effectively read, "Congress and the
States shall make no law ..."
SOURCE: My thanks to Josh Rosenbluth for the above easy to understand
explanation;
***********************************************************************************
Not about the only other thing that might help you, that is provided you
really want to try and understand all this is the following:
Your "question" was
"Maybe you can show me a US statute that explicitly prohibits the States
from making law respecting the establishment of religion. That
is, can you show me how Congress has implemented the 14th by
explicitly :|prohibiting the States from making the kinds of laws
the 1st prohibits or Congress? "
To clear up your confusion and misunderstanding I offer the following:
No statute is required. We have the Constitution which is the ultimate
"statute."
We also have the fact that all branches of government "make law."
See the following if you really want to explore it
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3746425476d&dq=&hl=en &lr=&selm...
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J2B5512F9
or the following more direct:
Judge made law, all branches of govt make law
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3818571407d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm...
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J4C5212F9
and finally
The following is your answer. It covers the question, historically, legally
from several directions.
You will, of course, disagree and reject the following, but that is to be
expected.
**********************************************************************************************
Establishment Clause
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3111921277d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm...
http://makeashorterlink.com/?U2D5122F9
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.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 SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
For people in Hampton Roads you are also invited to join
NORFOLK/VA. B. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE MEETUP GROUP
http://churchandstate.meetup.com/47/
Virginia Chapter Americans United for Separation of Church and State
http://au-va.org/
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a | | |
