"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:

Ole Jeffy is back. Looks like he found a fluffy non headache producing
thread he can participate in again so he shows up. All the other recent
threads were too complicated for him so he sat those out.

:|"Larry" <surfunbear@yahoo.com> wrote in message

:|> It seems that seperation of church and state is argued based on:
:|>
:|> 1. an attempt at a literal meaning of the constitution.
:|>
:|But what other meaning would one want to have?

A so called literal meaning is a bit difficult to obtain from ambiguous
wording.
The US Constitution contains a few ever precise and exact phrases and
clauses. It also contains a good many ambiguous and inexact phrases and
clauses.

:|> 2. trying to acertain what the for fathers intended.

:|We should be able to ascertain what they intended by actually reading

:|Consititution.

See above.
The framers didn't agree on what was intended. I can show you examples
where men who had attended the Constitutional convention together went

to their different home states afterwards and tried explaining the exact
clause to those there and explained it opposite of each other.

:|If we filter what we actually have through the negotiation
:|process, we might find that what we ended up with and what they

:|wanted are not necessarily the same things. We should work with what we
:|have, not what they wanted or thought about as a pie-in-the-sky

So speakith that "famous legal scholar" Jeffy

:|> 3. giving what if examples of various problems that could arise
:|> without seperation of church and state.
:|>
:|> At some time in my life I was told that the intent was to prevent a
:|> religious
:|> institution such as the catholic church, or the protestant church

:|> running the government and requiring for instance that all government
:|> officials
:|> be members of that church.
:|>
:|That is one of the primary intents.

How do you know that, jeffy?
Do you have any evidence apart from the writings of
conservatives/accommodationist?
Do you have any historical evidence that was a primary intent?

There is one major flaw with that thinking. The members of Congress came
from each of the different states. No religious sect or denomination had
universal appeal. Some denominations might be the majority religion in one
or two or three states and be on the bottom of the other in other states.

Do you honestly think that Congress critters would really be willing to
vote a certain denomination, which was a minority religion in their area,
the national religion?
Even by 1776 there was too much religious diversity in this country for

denomination to emerge as a national religion and the various sects and
denominations were far too jealous of each other to allow such to happen.

:|They didn't want the government to
:|meddle in the affairs of religion, nor for religion to meddle in the

:|of state.

Well, now that is good, too bad you don't really mean it or understand it,
as your previous argument etc show you don't

:|We can see by the long tradition of opening Congress and Court
:|sessions with a prayer,

Actually, when you look at history you can't really see that at all. BTW
the so called "prayer" that is said in the USSC isn't really much of a
prayer. I also find this very ironic that people point to that as prayer
yet try to state "under God" in the Pledge isn't prayer or even religious.
You can't have it both ways, dippy

:|and the courts with the admonition of "may God have
:|mercy on this court,"

Ooooooooo, when was the last time you ever heard that in a court of law?

:|that they didn't want to separate religion FROM
:|government,

Word games sonny, word games you don't even understand.

Separation of is separation from

See, I told you, you didn't believe or understand the following that you
said:

:|They didn't want the government to
:|meddle in the affairs of religion, nor for religion to meddle in the

:|of state.

:|they just wanted for these two bodies to operate separately from
:|each other.

LOL.

You really ought to study this:

Here is your full comment:

:|They didn't want the government to
:|meddle in the affairs of religion, nor for religion to meddle in the

:|of state.

:|We can see by the long tradition of opening Congress and Court
:|sessions with a prayer,

:|and the courts with the admonition of "may God have
:|mercy on this court,"

:|that they didn't want to separate religion FROM
:|government,

:|They didn't want the government to
:|meddle in the affairs of religion, nor for religion to meddle in the

:|of state.

:|they just wanted for these two bodies to operate separately from
:|each other.

LOL

Do you see the double talk that runs through the above.
Proably not, it's far too complicated for you to see it. It would give

a headache.

:|They didn't want the government to
:|meddle in the affairs of religion, nor for religion to meddle in the

:|of state.

Yes, so they separated church (religion) and state (govt.)
Article VI, Paragraph III is the separation clause

If you have any doubts about that check this out:

Study Guide: Separation of Church and State - Indepth
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd0.htm

:|We can see by the long tradition of opening Congress and Court
:|sessions with a prayer,

Spotty history

No such took place at the Constitutional convention,
James Madison claimed such was unconstitutional;

Check the following out:

Chaplains

An Overview from 1774 to early 1800's

* Chaplains and Congress
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/chaptest.htm

* The Political Move That Backfired
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/backfire.htm

* Duche's Letter To Washington
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/duche.htm

First Federal Congress (1789)
Chaplains
* Chief Justice Burger, I Would Like You To Meet Mr. Madison
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/meet.htm

* Discrepancies
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/discrep.htm

Excerpts from James Madison's Detached Memoranda (written after 1817)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/detach.htm

:|and the courts with the admonition of "may God have
:|mercy on this court,"

LOL, again I ask how often and when and where did this occur and was it
required or just habit.

:|that they didn't want to separate religion FROM
:|government,

:|They didn't want the government to
:|meddle in the affairs of religion, nor for religion to meddle in the

:|of state.

:|they just wanted for these two bodies to operate separately from
:|each other.

LOL, you are working hard at trying to make that make sense. Too bad it
doesn't work


Sep.a.rate (v. sepia rat/; adj., n. sep/ar it), v., -rated, -rating, adj.,
n. -v.t. 1. to keep apart or divide, as by an intervening barrier, space,
etc.: to separate two fields by a fence. 2. to put, bring, or force

part.: to separate two fighting boys. 3. to set apart; disconnect;
dissociate: to separate church and state. 4. to remove or sever from
association, service, etc.: separated from his wife; separated from the
army. b. to sort, part, divide, or disperse (an assemblage, mass,

etc.). as into individual units, components, elements, etc. 6. to take by
parting or dividing; extract (usually fol. by from or out): to separate
metal from ore. -v.i. 7. to part company; withdraw from personal
association (often fol. by from): to separate from a church. 8. (of a
married pair) to stop living together but. without getting a di- _ vorce.
9. to draw or colne apart; become divided, disconnected, or detached. 10.
to become parted from a t mass or compound: Cream separates from milk. 11.
to take or go in different directions: We have to separate at the
crossroad. -adj. 12. detached, disconnected, or disjoined. 13.

distinct; unique: two separate questions. 14. being or standing apart;
dispersed: ' two separate houses; The desert has widely separated oases.
16. existing or maintained independently: separate organizations. 16.
Individual or particular: each separate item. 17. riot shared; private:
Waiter. we'll l have separate checks. Aly brother and I have separate
rooms. 18. (sometimes cap.) noting or pertaining to a church or other
organization no longer associated with the original or parent

--n. 19. Usually, separates. t women's outer garments that may be worn in
combination with a variety of others to make various ensembles, as

tend contrasting blouses, skirts, and E sweaters, etc . Cf. coordinate
(def. fi). 20. offprint (dcf. 1). 21. a bibliographical unit, as an
article, chap- f ter, or other portion of a larger work, printed from tho
same: type but issued separately, sometimes with additional pages. [late
11E < L separat(us) (ptp. Of Separare) equiv. to se- SE- -1- par- put -1-
-dlus -ATEt] -sepia.rate.ly, adv. -sep/a.rate.nesa, n. -Syn. 1, 2. sever,
sunder, split. SEPARATE, DIVIDE imply a putting apart or keeping apart of
things from each other. To SEPARATE is to remove from each other things
previously associated: to separate a mother from s her children. TO DIVIDE
is to split or break up carefully f according to measurement, rule, or
plan: to divide a cake into equal parts. 3. disjoin, disengage. 9.
unattached, severed. 12. discrete. 13. withdrawn, secluded, isolated. 16.
independent. -Ant. 1-3. unite, con
WEBSTER'S New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, Based on the First Edition
of the Random HouseDictionary of the Englaish Language, Barnes & Noble
Books (1994) p. 1301

:|Another issue that weighed heavily upon them was the idea of
:|religious freedom,

LOL, that was the purpose of separating church and state, to enable
religious freedom to happen.

:|that is, some Americans would clearly want to worship in
:|a manner that was perhaps different than his neighbors, or maybe he

:|not want to worship at all. Not only can congress not establish laws
:|respecting an establishment of religion (this keeps the bodies of

:|and government at arms length from each other),

JEFFY!!!!!!!!
YOU JUST STUCK YOU FOOT IN YOUR MOUTH, YOU JUST USED THE "F" WORD.

Let me show you what you said:

:|that they didn't want to separate religion FROM
:|government,

AND

:|. . . Not only can congress not establish laws
:|respecting an establishment of religion (this keeps the bodies of

:|and government at arms length from each other),

Even you said FROM each other.


You just blew it dippy.

[snipped your soap box preaching, lecturing, and other such ***** you
love to engage in.]

*************************
[Jeffy had asked another]

Why do you feel the constant need to be nasty?

To you? Because you are an ignoramus who not only does not check his
facts, but posts endlessly repeating stuff that has been disproven
several times. You also seem to think that your unsupported opinion
is of interest to other people.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier,
*****************************
[To that I add]
Jeff - I don't have a clue what I am talking about, but I am good at
pretending and making it up as I go along so don't confuse me with the
facts, my mind is made up. I stereotype and prejudge. It has always worked
well in the past, why change now - Strickland

Jeffy -- maybe, I heard, but didn't bother to do any independent

[ He says it gives him a headache] I like to believe things I want to

I don't like knowing the facts if they aren't going to agree with what I
want to believe and I especially love passing along on the internet, as
facts, things I haven't a clue about their accuracy -- Strickland )
*******************************
[jeffy had said]

It is the mother that has custodial and full guardianship
rights of the child. Newdow has no rights relative to this child and her
rearing.

YOU STUPID FUCKING ILLITERATE MORON, READ WHAT YOU AGREED
WITH EARLIER! THE COURTS HAVE RULED THAT NONCUSTODIAL
PARENTS **DO** HAVE RIGHTS TO THE RELIGIOUS UPBRINGING
OF THEIR CHILDREN, YOU BRAIN-DAMAGED TURD!
Merlyn LeRoy
========================================================