"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|This is true, funding is not automatically establishment.
So sayeth seriously historically challenged Jeffy Strickland.
However, Jeffy's pronouncements do not alter actual historical fact, which
is as follows:
######################################################
Jeffy strikes out again
It was considered to be so during the founding period of this country
The use of public monies, the taxing of individuals to support religion was
considered a form of religious establishment at the time of the founding of
this nation.
Alexander Hamilton defined establishment of religion as the government
support and protection
of religion.
"Remarks on the Quebec Bill," in Hamilton Papers, 1:169-70.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
''[F]or the men who wrote the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment the
'establishment' of a religion connoted sponsorship, financial support, and
active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity."
http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment01/02.html#1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the eleven states that ratified the First 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 and violated its free
exercise.(78) . . .
That Americans during the revolutionary period did not always carry
their principles into practice either in Church-State or other matters did
not negate those principles. Except in a few instances, such as financial
support of churches, they passed to subsequent generations the task of
working out the consequences of the principle that the state had no
competence in religious matters in a society wherein customs, mores, laws,
and religion intertwined and wherein -the majority equated religion with
Protestantism. However, the federal Bill of Rights prompted several states
to begin to reconcile practice with principle Between 1 789 and 1792,
Delaware, South Carolina, and Georgia abandoned religious tests for
officeholding, and Pennsylvania modified its test to exclude only atheists.
.. . . Further, the people of almost every state that ratified the First
Amendment believed that religion should be maintained and supported
voluntarily. They saw government attempts to organize and regulate such
support as a usurpation of power, as a violation of liberty of conscience
and free exercise of religion, and as falling within the scope of what they
termed an establishment of religion.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The First Freedoms, Church and State in America to
the Passage of the First Amendment. Thomas J. Curry. Oxford University
Press. (1986) pp 202 - 222)
===========================================================
" The First Amendment bans laws respecting an establishment of
religion. Most of the framers of that amendment very probably meant that
government should not promote, sponsor, or subsidize religion because it is
best left to private voluntary support for the sake of religion itself as
well as for government, and above all for the sake of the individual. Some
of the framers undoubtedly believed that government should maintain a close
relationship with religion, that is, with Protestantism, and that people
should support taxes for the benefit of their own churches and ministers.
The framers who came from Massachusetts and Connecticut certainly believed
this, as did the representatives of New Hampshire, but New Hampshire was
the only one of these New England states that ratified the First Amendment.
Of the eleven states that ratified the First Amendment, New Hampshire and
Vermont were probably the only ones in which a majority of the people
believed that the government should support religion. In all the other
ratifying states, a majority very probably opposed such support. But
whether those who framed and ratified the First Amendment believed in
government aid to religion or in its private voluntary support, the fact is
that no framer believed that the United States had or should have power to
legislate on the subject of religion, and no state supported that power
either."
(The Establishment Clause, Religion and the First Amendment, By Leonard W
Levy, page 146-147)
==========================================================
One could say that the following words were designed to prevent that very
thing:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,..."
That the above words would prevent any supporting, be it financial or
non-financial, and protection of any religion, sect, religious society,
denomination, etc. It would not hinder religion but would not aid it
either.
=============================================================
Here are the facts of that case, one of the most political USSC rulings in
modern times
Revisiting Marsh v. Chambers
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/marshchm.htm
I don't expect dippy kenny will read the above but some of you others
might be surprised to see how low USSC justices can stoop to make itr come
out the way they want it to come out.
This is a good case to read the dissenting opinion on as well
Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983)
BURGER, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which WHITE, BLACKMUN,
POWELL, REHNQUIST, and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined.
BRENNAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which MARSHALL, J., joined,
post, p. 795. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 822.
BURGER, C.J., Opinion of the Court
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0463_0783_ZO.html
BRENNAN, J., Dissenting Opinion
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0463_0783_ZD.html
STEVENS, J., Dissenting Opinion
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0463_0783_ZD1.html
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
