| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
13 Nov 2003 06:09:17 AM |
| Object: |
Re: church/state seperation |
(Ryanshort1) wrote:
:|If he does somehow get a political office out of this, you can be that
:|it is in an attempt to right the wrongs that are clearly being done
:|now. And believe me, I know some folks who are in AL with the CJ now
:|and he is one genuine fellow. You did bring up a good point- that the
:|definitions of words used such as "church", "religion", "Congress",
:|and "separation" have a lot to do with this battle. The documents (The
:|US and AL constitutions) clearly use some "religious" terminology and
:|or refer to documents that clearly appeal to Almighty God for the
:|source of their rights, authority, and jurisdiction to create those
:|very documents, and the position that those opposed to Judge Moore is
:|very disturbing. They believe in a very dangerous evolving view of the
:|Constitution and other documents that (as seen now) twists their
:|original meanings completely around and is being used exactly opposite
:|to what the Founding Fathers would have meant.
:|BTW. An interesting site related to this issue is at
:|www.visionforum.org
As or more interesting is the following:
Study Guide: Separation of Church and State - Indepth
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd0.htm
Christian Orthodoxy And The Founders
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/orthodox.htm
The word Religion does not mean Christian.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/minor.htm
**************************
OCTOBER 1, 1803
Notes for annual message, Oct. 17, 1803: alterations and additions, etc [1]
(3) after "assure"-are proposed "in due season, and under prudent
arrangements, important aids to our Treasury, as well as," an ample etc.
Quere: if the two or three succeeding paragraphs be not more
adapted to the separate and subsequent communication, if adopted as above
suggested.
(4) For the first sentence, may be substituted "In the territory between
the Mississippi and the Ohio another valuable acquisition has been made by
a treaty etc."[3.] As it stands, it does not sufficiently distinguish the
nature of the one acquisition from that of the other, and seems to imply
that the acquisition from France was wholly on the other side of the
Mississippi
May it not be as well to omit the detail of the stipulated
considerations, and particularly that of the Roman Catholic Pastor. The
jealousy of some may see in it a principle, not according with the
exemption of Religion from Civil power. In the Indian Treaty it will be
less noticed than in a President's speech.[4.]
[The principle referred to above was the principle of Church (religion)
state (govt) separation.]
FOOTNOTES:
[1.] For TJ's third annual message to Congress, Oct. 17, 1803, see Ford,
VIII, pp. 266-7)
[3.] TI's message announced the acquisition of territory by treaty from the
Kaskaskia Indians; see
Ford, VIII, pp. 269-70.
[4.] TJ accepted JM's suggestion to omit any discussion of Indian treaty
requirements to maintain a Roman Catholic priest, leaving the stipulations
in the treaty to "the competence of both
houses.... as soon as the senate shall have advised its ratification"; see
ibid.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, Washington, Oct.
1, 1803, Notes for annual message, Oct. 17, 1803: alterations and
additions, etc.[1.],
The Republic of Letters, the Correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and
James Madison, 1776- 1826, Edited by James Morton Smith, Vol. II, 1790
-1804, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, London, (1995) pp 1297-98)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and
Madison's vetoes: Some of The First Official Meanings Assigned to The
Establishment Clause
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/madvetos.htm
and
************************************************************
James Madison on Separation of Church and State
Direct references to separation to be found in the writings of James
Madison
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qmadison.htm
----------------------------------------
OCTOBER 1, 1803
Notes for annual message, Oct. 17, 1803: alterations and additions, etc [1]
(3) after "assure"-are proposed "in due season, and under prudent
arrangements, important aids to our Treasury, as well as," an ample etc.
Quere: if the two or three succeeding paragraphs be not more
adapted to the separate and subsequent communication, if adopted as above
suggested.
(4) For the first sentence, may be substituted "In the territory between
the Mississippi and the Ohio another valuable acquisition has been made by
a treaty etc."[3.] As it stands, it does not sufficiently distinguish the
nature of the one acquisition from that of the other, and seems to imply
that the acquisition from France was wholly on the other side of the
Mississippi
May it not be as well to omit the detail of the stipulated
considerations, and particularly that of the Roman Catholic Pastor. The
jealousy of some may see in it a principle, not according with the
exemption of Religion from Civil power. In the Indian Treaty it will be
less noticed than in a President's speech.[4.]
[The principle referred to above was the principle of Church (religion)
state (govt) separation.]
FOOTNOTES:
[1.] For TJ's third annual message to Congress, Oct. 17, 1803, see Ford,
VIII, pp. 266-7)
[3.] TI's message announced the acquisition of territory by treaty from the
Kaskaskia Indians; see
Ford, VIII, pp. 269-70.
[4.] TJ accepted JM's suggestion to omit any discussion of Indian treaty
requirements to maintain a Roman Catholic priest, leaving the stipulations
in the treaty to "the competence of both
houses.... as soon as the senate shall have advised its ratification"; see
ibid.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, Washington, Oct.
1, 1803, Notes for annual message, Oct. 17, 1803: alterations and
additions, etc.[1.],
The Republic of Letters, the Correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and
James Madison, 1776- 1826, Edited by James Morton Smith, Vol. II, 1790
-1804, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, London, (1995) pp 1297-98)
---------------------------------------------------
JUNE 3, 1811
"To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I
have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the
Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem
Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical
distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the
purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States,
I could not have other wise discharged my duty on the
occasion which presented itself"
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June
3, 1811. Letters And Other Writings of James Madison Fourth President Of
The United States In Four Volumes Published By the Order Of Congress,
Vol..II, J. B. Lippincott & Co., Philadelphia, (1865) pp 511-512)
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARCH 2, 1819
"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated
hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions
with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of
the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly
increased by the total separation of the church from the State."
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excert of a letter to Robert Walsh from James
Madison. MARCH 2, 1819 Letters and Other writings of James Madison, in
Four Volumes, Published by Order of Congress. VOL. III, J. B. Lippincott &
Co. Philadelphia, (1865), pp 121-126. James Madison on Religious Liberty,
Robert S.Alley, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N.Y. (1985) pp 82-83)
----------------------------------------------------------
1817-1833
"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and Gov't in the
Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by
Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents' already furnished
in their short history"
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excerpt from Madison's Detached Memoranda. This
document was discovered in 1946 among the papers of William Cabell Rives, a
biographer of Madison. Scholars date these observations in Madison's hand
sometime between 1817 and 1832. The entire document was published by
Elizabeth Fleet in the William and Mary Quarterly of October 1946.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
JULY 10, 1822
"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation
between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have
no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done,
in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity
the less they are mixed together"
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excerpt of letter to Edward Livingston from James
Madison, July 10, 1822. Letters and Other writings of James Madison, in
Four Volumes, Published by Order of Congress. VOL. III, J. B. Lippincott &
Co. Philadelphia, (1865), pp 273-276. James Madison on Religious Liberty,
Robert S.Alley, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N.Y. (1985) pp 82-83)
--------------------------------------------------------------
SEPTEMBER 1833
"I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to
trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil
authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on
unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other
or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded
against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way
whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting
each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others".
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Letter written by James Madison to Rev. Jasper
Adams, September, 1833.Writings of James Madison, edited by Gaillard Hunt,
[not sure what the volume number is but have enough information presented
here to locate the letter] microform Z1236.L53, pp 484-488. )
*********************************************************************
Some Thoughts on Religion and Law
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/bthot-lr.htm"
.
|
|
| User: "ambrose searle" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
10 Dec 2003 03:49:34 PM |
|
|
"JTEM" <jaytem@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<5YKdnZQ09abZdUuiRVn-hA@comcast.com>...
"ambrose searle" <ambrosesearle@yahoo.com> wrote
And, oh, you're lying about your sources.
Would you care to put any teeth into that allegation with specifics?
What about the the actual words of Washington & Jefferson that I
had previously furnished,
I didn't ask what sources you lied about, I asked what sources I lied
about.
along with correcting your misrepresentation
of the Federalist Papers?
What source did I lie about? Give me a citation where I lied about a
source or shut up.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
06 Dec 2003 04:30:03 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 17:20:00 -0500, "JTEM" <jaytem@yahoo.com> wrote:
"ambrose searle" <ambrosesearle@yahoo.com> wrote
There is a divine right to alter or abolish a tyrannical government
inherent in American Political Thinking,
This would explain why they created a constitution which included
the means to alter and/or abolish the government.
And, oh, you're lying about your sources.
That is the foundation of all of his arguments.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
05 Dec 2003 12:24:34 PM |
|
|
(ambrose searle) wrote:
There is a divine right to alter or abolish a tyrannical government
inherent in American Political Thinking,
The American constitutional system is defined to NOT be a tyrannical
government, therefore there is no relevant divine right.
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: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state sepAration |
05 Dec 2003 01:57:07 PM |
|
|
(ambrose searle) wrote:
There is a divine right to alter or abolish a tyrannical government
inherent in American Political Thinking,
On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 12:24:34 -0600, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
The American constitutional system is defined to NOT be a tyrannical
government, therefore there is no relevant divine right.
Hm,m,m - I'd certainly not like to go to /his/ church!
Can you imagine stained glass windows picturing Saint Benedict Arnold, Saint
John Wilkes Booth, the people who killed President Kennedy and his brother
and Martin Luther King?
Of course, the Holy Land would have to be Vichy France with that Great Dane,
Saint Quisling, pictured thereupon.
I would imagine that someone visiting the Chapel of Divine Rights and Earthly
Delights would be caught staring at the stained glass window, murmuring,
"There's something that's just not right with this picture".
Gray Shockley
--------------------------------------------------------
Whose sins have [sigh] been mainly those of
stupidity rather than evil and, therefore, isn't
a bad enough sinner to make a really great repentance.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state sepAration |
05 Dec 2003 02:15:04 PM |
|
|
Gray Shockley <gray-87a@cybercoffee.org> wrote:
:|
:|ambrosesearle@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
:|
:|>> There is a divine right to alter or abolish a tyrannical government
:|>> inherent in American Political Thinking,
:|
:|
:|On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 12:24:34 -0600, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
:|
:|> The American constitutional system is defined to NOT be a tyrannical
:|> government, therefore there is no relevant divine right.
:|
:|
:|Hm,m,m - I'd certainly not like to go to /his/ church!
:|
:|Can you imagine stained glass windows picturing Saint Benedict Arnold, Saint
:|John Wilkes Booth, the people who killed President Kennedy and his brother
:|and Martin Luther King?
:|
:|Of course, the Holy Land would have to be Vichy France with that Great Dane,
:|Saint Quisling, pictured thereupon.
:|
:|I would imagine that someone visiting the Chapel of Divine Rights and Earthly
:|Delights would be caught staring at the stained glass window, murmuring,
:|"There's something that's just not right with this picture".
:|
:|
:|
:|Gray Shockley
:|--------------------------------------------------------
It's a shame the person you are replying to probably isn't see your replies
since they are showing up as new threads.
Based on past experience, at least with Gardiner AKA Searle, for whatever
reason he usually doesn'tt read or otherwise mess with new threads or
individual replies to him that are new threads
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state sepAration |
05 Dec 2003 02:33:32 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 14:15:04 -0600, wrote
(in message <8kp1tvg5brebe2v3voh3p8m3lst938vjjc@4ax.com>):
Gray Shockley <gray-87a@cybercoffee.org> wrote:
ambrosesearle@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
There is a divine right to alter or abolish a tyrannical government
inherent in American Political Thinking,
On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 12:24:34 -0600, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
The American constitutional system is defined to NOT be a tyrannical
government, therefore there is no relevant divine right.
Hm,m,m - I'd certainly not like to go to /his/ church!
Can you imagine stained glass windows picturing Saint Benedict Arnold,
Saint
John Wilkes Booth, the people who killed President Kennedy and his
brother
and Martin Luther King?
Of course, the Holy Land would have to be Vichy France with that Great
Dane,
Saint Quisling, pictured thereupon.
I would imagine that someone visiting the Chapel of Divine Rights and
Earthly
Delights would be caught staring at the stained glass window, murmuring,
"There's something that's just not right with this picture".
Gray Shockley
--------------------------------------------------------
It's a shame the person you are replying to probably isn't see your replies
since they are showing up as new threads.
Based on past experience, at least with Gardiner AKA Searle, for whatever
reason he usually doesn'tt read or otherwise mess with new threads or
individual replies to him that are new threads
Tis much more important to have a rat
show up than one read my missive.
Gray
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state sepAration |
10 Dec 2003 10:54:56 AM |
|
|
Gray Shockley <gray-87a@cybercoffee.org> wrote:
:|Tis much more important to have a rat
:|show up than one read my missive.
:|
:|Gray
I suppose, but there is no evidence the person you replied to reads them.
That was my point.
I think it has something to do with the fact he doesn't read the newsgroups
directly, he reads from Google which I suspect means he has it set to give
him new posts in specially marked threads. Thus a reply appearing in a
separate thread he wouldn't see to read.
Was just trying to be helpful in case you really did want the person you
were replying to to see your reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state sepAration |
10 Dec 2003 02:26:16 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 10:54:56 -0600, wrote
(in message <etjetvc2tj32nq5sct6grpihqeu8v9upp7@4ax.com>):
Gray Shockley <gray-87a@cybercoffee.org> wrote:
Tis much more important to have a rat
show up than one read my missive.
Gray
I suppose, but there is no evidence the person you replied to reads them.
That was my point.
I think it has something to do with the fact he doesn't read the newsgroups
directly, he reads from Google which I suspect means he has it set to give
him new posts in specially marked threads. Thus a reply appearing in a
separate thread he wouldn't see to read.
Was just trying to be helpful in case you really did want the person you
were replying to to see your reply.
Thanks but I killfooled the multiple
personalities of your antagonist a while back,
so I wouldn't see their reply anyway.
Although the parts you're backquoting are so amusing,
I might well lift my strategic blockade of the dribbling
of the understudy [/way/ under] of Professor Irwin Corey.
Gray Shockley
--------------------------------------------------------
Or, perhaps and per chance, he was the
understudy of General Al Haig and he's in charge now.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state sepAration |
11 Dec 2003 02:02:52 PM |
|
|
Gray Shockley <gray-87a@cybercoffee.org> wrote:
:|On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 10:54:56 -0600, wrote
:|(in message <etjetvc2tj32nq5sct6grpihqeu8v9upp7@4ax.com>):
:|
:|> Gray Shockley <gray-87a@cybercoffee.org> wrote:
:|>
:|>>>> Tis much more important to have a rat
:|>>>> show up than one read my missive.
:|>>>>
:|>>>> Gray
:|>
:|> I suppose, but there is no evidence the person you replied to reads them.
:|> That was my point.
:|> I think it has something to do with the fact he doesn't read the newsgroups
:|> directly, he reads from Google which I suspect means he has it set to give
:|> him new posts in specially marked threads. Thus a reply appearing in a
:|> separate thread he wouldn't see to read.
:|>
:|> Was just trying to be helpful in case you really did want the person you
:|> were replying to to see your reply.
:|
:|
:| Thanks but I killfooled the multiple
:|personalities of your antagonist a while back,
:| so I wouldn't see their reply anyway.
Otay
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state sepAration |
06 Dec 2003 12:47:28 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 13:57:07 -0600, Gray Shockley
<gray-87a@cybercoffee.org> wrote:
ambrosesearle@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
There is a divine right to alter or abolish a tyrannical government
inherent in American Political Thinking,
On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 12:24:34 -0600, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
The American constitutional system is defined to NOT be a tyrannical
government, therefore there is no relevant divine right.
Hm,m,m - I'd certainly not like to go to /his/ church!
Can you imagine stained glass windows picturing Saint Benedict Arnold, Saint
John Wilkes Booth, the people who killed President Kennedy and his brother
and Martin Luther King?
Of course, the Holy Land would have to be Vichy France with that Great Dane,
Saint Quisling, pictured thereupon.
Please! He was Norwegian.
I would imagine that someone visiting the Chapel of Divine Rights and Earthly
Delights would be caught staring at the stained glass window, murmuring,
"There's something that's just not right with this picture".
Gray Shockley
--------------------------------------------------------
Whose sins have [sigh] been mainly those of
stupidity rather than evil and, therefore, isn't
a bad enough sinner to make a really great repentance.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state sepAration |
08 Dec 2003 09:20:38 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 12:47:28 -0600, wrote
(in message <dne3tvsfvfsmsjovopts4216sqkk5rr7pk@4ax.com>):
On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 13:57:07 -0600, Gray Shockley
<gray-87a@cybercoffee.org> wrote:
ambrosesearle@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
There is a divine right to alter or abolish a tyrannical government
inherent in American Political Thinking,
On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 12:24:34 -0600, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
The American constitutional system is defined to NOT be a tyrannical
government, therefore there is no relevant divine right.
Hm,m,m - I'd certainly not like to go to /his/ church!
Can you imagine stained glass windows picturing Saint Benedict Arnold,
Saint
John Wilkes Booth, the people who killed President Kennedy and his brother
and Martin Luther King?
Of course, the Holy Land would have to be Vichy France with that Great
Dane,
Saint Quisling, pictured thereupon.
Please! He was Norwegian.
BIG OOPS!
Actually, that pleases me.
One of the guys who worked with my Dad for many years was Danish and he used
to come over to the house for dinner occasionally. [He was a first generation
"Soil Mechanic" - actually studed under Karl von Terzaghi in Istanbul
- and my Dad was - IIRC - 2nd (3rd?)]
I've always been very enthusiastic about Denmark and am very happy to be
corrected on this.
Gray Shockley
--------------------------------------------------------
When trouble arises and things look bad, there is always one
individual who perceives a solution and is willing to take
command. Very often, that individual is crazy. -Author Unk
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
05 Dec 2003 02:54:43 PM |
|
|
On 5 Dec 2003 09:11:05 -0800, (ambrose searle)
wrote:
I would even go so far as to say that the government recognizes no
right to revolution granted by positive law, but that such a right is,
as Jefferson said, a right endowed by the Creator, a divine right.
You have admitted again that there is no legal right of insurrection
under the US Constitution.
There is a divine right to alter or abolish a tyrannical government
inherent in American Political Thinking, starting with the Declaration
of Independence and implicit in the 2nd Amendment; it was a right
recognized by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, by Jefferson, by
Lincoln, and even now by the ACLU.
You are the only person who seems to deny it.
You have denied that there is such a legal right above. It is not
written or implied in the 2'nd amendment. No law grants it. No court
has ever approved it. Your claim becomes vaguer and vaguer with each
post. Give it up.
Martin Luther King, Jr. was another who wrote that it is the people's
DUTY to disobey the government when the government is in violation of
"higher law." And again, history vindicated his illegal actions to a
large degree.
And they remain illegal.
Not all. Some of the acts that were considered "illegal" actions of
civil disobedience, like a black drinking from a white water fountain,
are now, as an ultimate result of that disobedience, LEGAL.
The law has been changed. What he did (morally justified as it may
have been) was illegal at the time.
You said, "they REMAIN illegal." You were wrong... AGAIN.
They also remain in the past, when they were illegal. I am not wrong;
Gratuitous insults having nothing to do with the debate, which you
have just admitted that you have lost.
There is no insult in the passage above, especially not the kinds of
insults you have slung throughout the thread.
What I have said about you is the simple truth recognized by many
others in this group
your fallacy ad populum isn't going to erase your fallacy ad homimen
If it makes you happy, continue to think so. You seem to need many
fantasies to keep you happy. Judging a person based on objective
evidence and noting that others have come to the same conclusion based
on the same objective evidence is not a logical fallacy. Your jury
system makes use of a quite similar process.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ambrose searle" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
09 Dec 2003 05:36:18 PM |
|
|
There is a divine right to alter or abolish a tyrannical government
inherent in American Political Thinking, starting with the Declaration
of Independence and implicit in the 2nd Amendment; it was a right
recognized by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, by Jefferson, by
Lincoln, and even now by the ACLU.
You are the only person who seems to deny it.
You have denied that there is such a legal right above. It is not
written or implied in the 2'nd amendment. No law grants it.
Natural law... a little concept embraced by the founders almost
unanimously.
No court
has ever approved it.
The Second Continental Congress approved it.
What I have said about you is the simple truth recognized by many
others in this group
your fallacy ad populum isn't going to erase your fallacy ad homimen
If it makes you happy, continue to think so. You seem to need many
fantasies to keep you happy. Judging a person based on objective
evidence and noting that others have come to the same conclusion based
on the same objective evidence is not a logical fallacy. Your jury
system makes use of a quite similar process.
If you consider the posters to alt.atheism et al, an "unbiased" jury
of peers, then your delusion is beyond medical treatment.
Searle
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
01 Dec 2003 04:38:26 PM |
|
|
On 1 Dec 2003 11:46:53 -0800, (ambrose searle)
wrote:
tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk wrote in message news:<7i0msvoaqhcqllsqc5fjk2iudd3i1r7k86@4ax.com>...
On 30 Nov 2003 22:00:13 -0800, (ambrose
searle) wrote:
I am rejecting
your absurd idea that the amendment makes legal armed insurrection
against the state.
The idea that the people have the right and duty to alter or abolish a
tyrannical government is not MY idea. It was Jefferson & friends.
Furthermore, the idea that the second amendment is largely based on
this sentiment is the view of constitutional scholars with much better
credentials than yours or mine.
Searle
And you still fail to quote one law or court decision to back up your
absurdity, preferring to continue to babble.
Please quote one law or court decision that explicitly states that I
have the right to drive down to the 7-11, buy a bag of Utz potato
chips, bring them home and eat a turkey sandwich with those potato
chips, while watching TV and drinking a Hawaiian Punch.
Guess what: you won't find any "court decision" that explicitly states
I have the right to do all that.
Guess what else: I still have the right to do it.
In short, your logic is terribly flawed.
Thank you for confirming my comment above concerning your fondness for
babbling. The above is a perfect example.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ambrose searle" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
03 Dec 2003 10:25:58 PM |
|
|
wrote in message news:<1kgnsvgmr3b34tma2lpcshr03efprvap1h@4ax.com>...
On 1 Dec 2003 11:46:53 -0800, (ambrose searle)
wrote:
wrote in message news:<7i0msvoaqhcqllsqc5fjk2iudd3i1r7k86@4ax.com>...
On 30 Nov 2003 22:00:13 -0800, (ambrose
searle) wrote:
I am rejecting
your absurd idea that the amendment makes legal armed insurrection
against the state.
The idea that the people have the right and duty to alter or abolish a
tyrannical government is not MY idea. It was Jefferson & friends.
Furthermore, the idea that the second amendment is largely based on
this sentiment is the view of constitutional scholars with much better
credentials than yours or mine.
Searle
And you still fail to quote one law or court decision to back up your
absurdity, preferring to continue to babble.
Please quote one law or court decision that explicitly states that I
have the right to drive down to the 7-11, buy a bag of Utz potato
chips, bring them home and eat a turkey sandwich with those potato
chips, while watching TV and drinking a Hawaiian Punch.
Guess what: you won't find any "court decision" that explicitly states
I have the right to do all that.
Guess what else: I still have the right to do it.
In short, your logic is terribly flawed.
Thank you for confirming my comment above concerning your fondness for
babbling. The above is a perfect example.
Actually, what I provided is known as a counter-example, i.e., an argument.
What you have posted here is what is known as an ad hominem, i.e., a fallacy.
Searle
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
04 Dec 2003 04:49:23 AM |
|
|
On 3 Dec 2003 20:25:58 -0800, (ambrose searle)
wrote:
tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk wrote in message news:<1kgnsvgmr3b34tma2lpcshr03efprvap1h@4ax.com>...
On 1 Dec 2003 11:46:53 -0800, (ambrose searle)
wrote:
tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk wrote in message news:<7i0msvoaqhcqllsqc5fjk2iudd3i1r7k86@4ax.com>...
On 30 Nov 2003 22:00:13 -0800, (ambrose
searle) wrote:
I am rejecting
your absurd idea that the amendment makes legal armed insurrection
against the state.
The idea that the people have the right and duty to alter or abolish a
tyrannical government is not MY idea. It was Jefferson & friends.
Furthermore, the idea that the second amendment is largely based on
this sentiment is the view of constitutional scholars with much better
credentials than yours or mine.
Searle
And you still fail to quote one law or court decision to back up your
absurdity, preferring to continue to babble.
Please quote one law or court decision that explicitly states that I
have the right to drive down to the 7-11, buy a bag of Utz potato
chips, bring them home and eat a turkey sandwich with those potato
chips, while watching TV and drinking a Hawaiian Punch.
Guess what: you won't find any "court decision" that explicitly states
I have the right to do all that.
Guess what else: I still have the right to do it.
In short, your logic is terribly flawed.
Thank you for confirming my comment above concerning your fondness for
babbling. The above is a perfect example.
Actually, what I provided is known as a counter-example, i.e., an argument.
What you have posted here is what is known as an ad hominem, i.e., a fallacy.
If you say so. You have also (in another post) just wrote the
following:
The Court could indeed NEVER rule that a overthrow of the government
was legitimate, because if indeed such rebellion ever did occur, the
Court, which is part of the government, would be overthrown and no
longer in power.
Thus admitting that there is no legal right of armed insurrection.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
04 Dec 2003 08:47:17 AM |
|
|
wrote:
:|
:|If you say so. You have also (in another post) just wrote the
:|following:
:|
:|>The Court could indeed NEVER rule that a overthrow of the government
:|>was legitimate, because if indeed such rebellion ever did occur, the
:|>Court, which is part of the government, would be overthrown and no
:|>longer in power.
:|
:|Thus admitting that there is no legal right of armed insurrection.
:|None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
:|"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
Welcome to the posting world of Richard Gardiner AKA Ambrose Searle
http://makeashorterlink.com/?C363237B6
and
http://makeashorterlink.com/?F3E6121B6
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ambrose searle" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
25 Nov 2003 05:59:47 AM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message news:<p5m5svc0vid9drg5r6d6rj9hrlgaa043ca@4ax.com>...
ambrosesearle@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
Well, there is where you and I have certainly reached an impasse.
I do not believe that saying "I believe in God" is "MISBEHAVIOR." For
you to say that it is, as you have said above, is to say that you want
a governmental establishment of atheism.
I believe in the first amendment. I don't think religious
establishments are proper, right, or American.
It's too bad that you do.
His misbehavior was not his belief in God. His misbehavior was to
defy a superior courts order repeatedly.
A order to deny his belief in God...
I never saw an order for him to deny his belief in God. I saw an
order to remove a big carved sculpture from the courthouse.
I agree. And since his belief in God should have been irrelevant to
the case, there was no reason for the prosecutor to grill him on
whether or not he intended to acknowledge God's existence.
an unlawful order, which, under
the higher law, has regularly been deemed to take precedence over
man-made law: see e.g., the Declaration of Independence, the Nuremberg
prosecutors' arguments, the Mi Lai trial record, etc.
In this country there is NO higher law than the constitution.
How wrong you are. It is an established principle in this country that
subordinates are required to disobey unlawful orders of their
constitutionally authorized superiors.
An instructive piece of cinematography illustrating this point is "A
Few Good Men." Though Nicholson had the constitutional authority, the
soldiers were rightly prosecuted for NOT disobeying him.
If you think that "A Few Good Men" is an entirely made up scenario
that never happens in our country, see U.S. v. Calley, 1968.
He violated his oath of
office multiple times
His oath of office ended with "so help me God." To deny God would be
to admit that it was a bogus oath in the first place.
No one told him to deny God.
The question is why was it even part of the trial.
Searle
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
25 Nov 2003 12:21:10 PM |
|
|
(ambrose searle) wrote:
No one told him to deny God.
The question is why was it even part of the trial.
I have no idea and refuse to speculate.
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: "" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
25 Nov 2003 05:30:54 AM |
|
|
On 24 Nov 2003 16:01:45 -0800, (ambrose
searle) wrote:
Draccus874@netscape.net wrote in message news:<ea8aeb4.0311200152.ccd9ec5@posting.google.com>...
(ambrose searle) wrote in message news:<fe9a0c54.0311191948.ca9bdc4@posting.google.com>...
Carol Lee Smith <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.OSF.3.96.1031119085326.26091F-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu>...
On 19 Nov 2003, ambrose searle wrote:
The courts had already determined that Moore had misbehaved. Pryor gave
Moore an opportunity to confirm he would misbehave in the same way again
if and when he has the opportunity.
Well, there is where you and I have certainly reached an impasse.
I do not believe that saying "I believe in God" is "MISBEHAVIOR." For
you to say that it is, as you have said above, is to say that you want
a governmental establishment of atheism.
I believe in the first amendment. I don't think religious
establishments are proper, right, or American.
It's too bad that you do.
Searle
His misbehavior was not his belief in God. His misbehavior was to
defy a superior courts order repeatedly.
A order to deny his belief in God...
He was not ordered to deny his belief. Please provide documentation
for that claim.
snip
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
25 Nov 2003 02:55:39 PM |
|
|
On 24 Nov 2003, ambrose searle wrote:
Draccus874@netscape.net wrote in message news:<ea8aeb4.0311200152.ccd9ec5@posting.google.com>...
His misbehavior was not his belief in God. His misbehavior was to
defy a superior courts order repeatedly.
A order to deny his belief in God...
Are you being intentionally dense? If there was a court order to deny his
belief in God, it should be a piece of cake to give us a referent for that
court order.
We won't hold our breath.
He violated his oath of
office multiple times
His oath of office ended with "so help me God." To deny God would be
to admit that it was a bogus oath in the first place.
Moore was never required to deny any imaginary friends by any name.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
26 Nov 2003 12:58:10 PM |
|
|
(ambrose searle) wrote:
:|Carol Lee Smith <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.OSF.3.96.1031119085326.26091F-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu>...
:|> On 19 Nov 2003, ambrose searle wrote:
:|>
:|> The courts had already determined that Moore had misbehaved. Pryor gave
:|> Moore an opportunity to confirm he would misbehave in the same way again
:|> if and when he has the opportunity.
:|
:|Well, there is where you and I have certainly reached an impasse.
:|
:|I do not believe that saying "I believe in God" is "MISBEHAVIOR." For
:|you to say that it is, as you have said above, is to say that you want
:|a governmental establishment of atheism.
:|
:|I believe in the first amendment. I don't think religious
:|establishments are proper, right, or American.
:|
:|It's too bad that you do.
:|
:|Searle
Moore's removal was becasue of:
*********************************************
NOVEMBER 13, 2003
The court order from Alabama Court of the Judiciary removing Roy Moore from
the office of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama can be assessed
at:
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/religion/inremoore111303opn.pdf
*********************************************
*********************************************
NOVEMBER 3, 2003
Justices Reject Judge's Ten Commandments Appeal
By James Vicini
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) rejected
on Monday appeals by Alabama's embattled top judge, Roy Moore, who has
waged an unsuccessful legal battle to display the Ten Commandments at the
state judicial building.
Without comment, the high court refused to hear two appeals by Moore, who
was suspended after refusing to comply with a federal judge's order in
August to remove the granite monument inscribed with the commandments
because it violated constitutional church-state separation.
The high court in recent years has let stand other U.S. appeals court
rulings that have barred the display of large granite monuments engraved
with the Ten Commandments on the grounds of state capitals.
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
Page 14
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/110303pzor.pdf
MANDAMUS DENIED
03-258 IN RE ROY S. MOORE, CHIEF JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
The petition for a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition is denied.
*********************************************
*********************************************
AUGUST 20, 2003
U.S. SUPREME COURT DENIES REQUEST TO BLOCK REMOVAL OF ALABAMA COMMANDMENTS
DISPLAY
The U.S. Supreme Court today turned away another last-ditch effort by
Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore to thwart a federal court order that he
remove his granite Ten Commandments monument from the state Judicial
Building.
This morning Moore filed a request with the Supreme Court to block U.S.
District Judge Myron Thompson's order that the granite Ten Commandments be
removed from the rotunda of the judicial building by Aug. 20. Thompson's
order indicated that if Moore refused to comply, he could be found in
contempt of court and substantial fines could be levied against the state.
In a one-sentence statement issued late today, the high court denied
Moore's request to nullify Thompson's order for removal of the monument.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
*********************************************
AUGUST 5, 2003
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. -- A federal judge ruled Tuesday that Chief Justice Roy
Moore has 15 days to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the Alabama
Judiciary Building.
U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson said in his order that Moore now must
remove the monument by Aug. 20. Moore is appealing Thompson's ruling that
the monument in unconstitutional to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Final Judgment Glassroth vs Moore, August 5,
2003: PDF, Word, WordPerfect
Final Judgment in the Moore case may be viewed here:
http://www.almd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/index_of_opinions.htm
http://www.nbc13.com/news/2383080/detail.html
*********************************************
JULY 1, 2003
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
GLASSROTH v. MOORE (07/01/03 - No. 02-16708, 02-16949)
A Ten Commandments monument installed in the Alabama State Judicial
Building by the Chief Judge of the Alabama Supreme Court violates the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and the monument must be
removed.
To read the full text of this opinion, go to:[PDF File]
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/11th/0216708p.pdf
*********************************************
*********************************************
NOVEMBER 18, 2002
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GLASSROTH v.. MOORE, (11-18-02) CIVIL ACTION NO. 01-T-1268-N.
A Ten Commandments monument in the rotunda of Alabama's judicial building
violates the constitution's ban on government promotion of religion, a
federal judge ruled Monday.
U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson gave Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore,
who had had the 5,300-pound granite monument installed in the state
building, 30 days to remove it.
To read the full text of this opinion, go to:[PDF File]
http://www.almd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/index_of_opinions.htm
http://www.almd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Glassroth%20v%20Moore%20Opinion.pdf
*********************************************
All you game playing spinning and ploys are irrelevant.
**************************
Now for Ambrose Searle AKA Richard Gardiner's rambling discourse I add
this:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[as Gray Shockley said:]
(Your "opinion" is not an adequate citation.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Dave Thompson" said to another but it can be applied to Ambrose Searle
AKA Richard Gardiner as well
Ummmm, you are a historical troll that has been posting this dreck for a
while now. It doesn't matter if you stopped for a while or not. None of
your posts are new, they're just the same thing you've posted before and
have been shown to be baseless. You obviously don't like it when you've
been caught right in the beginning. I'm sure it won't stop you but at least
it serves notice to others that aren't familiar with you who they are
dealing with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take anything that Ambrose Searle aka Richard Gardiner types with a grain
of salt. As he has demonstrated time and time again in the past of several
years ago, the past of a year and half ago and finally quite recently,
truth and him with regards to posting are not on speaking terms.
MY EVIDENCE:
*************************
Gardiner AKA Searle's church state posting history covering 3-99 to 902,
5/02 - 7/02 and this current year
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N16F22596
http://snurl.com/2ws8
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q54F21596 (up to date as of 11/18/03)
*************************
http://makeashorterlink.com/?I2AF32596
http://snurl.com/2wsb
*************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
20 Nov 2003 03:24:07 AM |
|
|
(ambrose searle) wrote:
Carol Lee Smith <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.OSF.3.96.1031119085326.26091F-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu>...
On 19 Nov 2003, ambrose searle wrote:
The courts had already determined that Moore had misbehaved. Pryor gave
Moore an opportunity to confirm he would misbehave in the same way again
if and when he has the opportunity.
Well, there is where you and I have certainly reached an impasse.
I do not believe that saying "I believe in God" is "MISBEHAVIOR."
In a courtroom, presiding at the bench, it generally is. In private
life, the same statement is not a problem.
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: "ambrose searle" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
24 Nov 2003 05:56:41 PM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message news:<1v1prvgb32vaj05pd9rnq8610f18tlstad@4ax.com>...
ambrosesearle@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
Carol Lee Smith <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.OSF.3.96.1031119085326.26091F-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu>...
On 19 Nov 2003, ambrose searle wrote:
The courts had already determined that Moore had misbehaved. Pryor gave
Moore an opportunity to confirm he would misbehave in the same way again
if and when he has the opportunity.
Well, there is where you and I have certainly reached an impasse.
I do not believe that saying "I believe in God" is "MISBEHAVIOR."
In a courtroom, presiding at the bench, it generally is.
Where does the constitution say that the free exercise of religion is
prohibited while one is a judge? The words I read therein are that
"congress shall make no law..." not "judges are prohibited from
acknowledging God."
Perhaps you are admitting that you believe Judges are really
legislators, law-makers, activists, etc.
Judges are interpreters of the law; they are not to be creating it...
that, in a free society, is solely the right of the people through
their elected representatives.
Searle
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Thompson" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
24 Nov 2003 09:41:17 PM |
|
|
"ambrose searle" <ambrosesearle@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fe9a0c54.0311241556.2f11d946@posting.google.com...
Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:<1v1prvgb32vaj05pd9rnq8610f18tlstad@4ax.com>...
ambrosesearle@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
Carol Lee Smith <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:<Pine.OSF.3.96.1031119085326.26091F-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu>...
On 19 Nov 2003, ambrose searle wrote:
The courts had already determined that Moore had misbehaved. Pryor
gave
Moore an opportunity to confirm he would misbehave in the same way
again
if and when he has the opportunity.
Well, there is where you and I have certainly reached an impasse.
I do not believe that saying "I believe in God" is "MISBEHAVIOR."
In a courtroom, presiding at the bench, it generally is.
Where does the constitution say that the free exercise of religion is
prohibited while one is a judge? The words I read therein are that
"congress shall make no law..." not "judges are prohibited from
acknowledging God."
You obviously need to have the concept of common sense explained to you.
Were the free exercise of religion to be the same for government officials
as it is for non-government citizens, you would be creating a class of
citizens (government employees) who had more access to the public square
than private citizens and were able to ignore the constitution. Don't think
so? Well, imagine if your standard were true, a judge, police officer, or
public defender would be able to admonish the average Joe in such a way that
would violate that citizen's free exercise of religion. The cop can say that
he was exercising his rights when giving someone a ticket for driving on the
Sabbath. A judge could say that the person he charged with contempt of court
did so because they ignored his call to prayer. A public defender could
choose not to defend a Muslim because he were a Christian.
Your blatant stupidity on this mater is something I have no respect for. To
say that a government official can acknowledge specific religious beliefs
while he is an officer of the government is contemptible because not only
does it give the government license to violate other's religious rights on
the grounds of private religious freedom, it gives government employees
special privileges that the average citizen does not have.
That said, I doubt you have the guts to confront your hypocrisy so I'll just
say that I won and let you slink off underneath some rock.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ambrose searle" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
25 Nov 2003 12:54:33 AM |
|
|
"Dave Thompson" <dav13795@wdmdx1.com> wrote in message news:<vs5jrejnpieo84@corp.supernews.com>...
"ambrose searle" <ambrosesearle@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Where does the constitution say that the free exercise of religion is
prohibited while one is a judge? The words I read therein are that
"congress shall make no law..." not "judges are prohibited from
acknowledging God."
You obviously need to have the concept of common sense explained to you.
The cop can say that
he was exercising his rights when giving someone a ticket for driving on the
Sabbath.
Perhaps you need to have the concept of 8th grade civics to you.
Police officers cannot make the laws, they can only enforce them.
A judge could say that the person he charged with contempt of court
did so because they ignored his call to prayer.
Again, basic civics. The legislative branch makes laws, the judicial
branch interprets them.
A public defender could
choose not to defend a Muslim because he were a Christian.
I imagine that such could take place as a result of the individual's
right of conscience; the defender may have to sacrifice his position
to do so, but certainly there is no coerced labor in this country, see
Amendment 13, so a public defender can choose not to defend anyone he
pleases.
Your blatant stupidity on this mater is something I have no respect for.
Your lack of knowledge of 8th grade civics is far more embarrassing.
To
say that a government official can acknowledge specific religious beliefs
while he is an officer of the government is contemptible
Happens regularly and often
http://grove.ufl.edu/~leo/clinton.html
http://www.layman.org/layman/news/news-from-pcusa/senate-chaplains-prayers.htm
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa071600a.htm
because not only
does it give the government license to violate other's religious rights on
the grounds of private religious freedom, it gives government employees
special privileges that the average citizen does not have.
That said, I doubt you have the guts to confront your hypocrisy so I'll just
say that I won and let you slink off underneath some rock.
Just about everything you wrote is demonstrably proven wrong.
So, go beat your chest like Tarzan and say "I won" all day. The actual
record stands.
Searle
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Thompson" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
25 Nov 2003 12:42:53 PM |
|
|
"ambrose searle" <ambrosesearle@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fe9a0c54.0311242254.57d52978@posting.google.com...
"Dave Thompson" <dav13795@wdmdx1.com> wrote in message
news:<vs5jrejnpieo84@corp.supernews.com>...
"ambrose searle" <ambrosesearle@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Where does the constitution say that the free exercise of religion is
prohibited while one is a judge? The words I read therein are that
"congress shall make no law..." not "judges are prohibited from
acknowledging God."
You obviously need to have the concept of common sense explained to you.
The cop can say that
he was exercising his rights when giving someone a ticket for driving on
the
Sabbath.
Perhaps you need to have the concept of 8th grade civics to you.
Police officers cannot make the laws, they can only enforce them.
A judge could say that the person he charged with contempt of court
did so because they ignored his call to prayer.
Again, basic civics. The legislative branch makes laws, the judicial
branch interprets them.
A public defender could
choose not to defend a Muslim because he were a Christian.
I imagine that such could take place as a result of the individual's
right of conscience; the defender may have to sacrifice his position
to do so, but certainly there is no coerced labor in this country, see
Amendment 13, so a public defender can choose not to defend anyone he
pleases.
Your blatant stupidity on this mater is something I have no respect for.
Your lack of knowledge of 8th grade civics is far more embarrassing.
My knowledge of government and law, what you quaintly call civics, is just
fine. At least I understand the role a government official plays while on
the clock compared to thier role as a private citizen. You obviously don't
want to acknowledge this difference and you've gone to great lengths to
demonstrate it.
To
say that a government official can acknowledge specific religious
beliefs
while he is an officer of the government is contemptible
Happens regularly and often
http://grove.ufl.edu/~leo/clinton.html
http://www.layman.org/layman/news/news-from-pcusa/senate-chaplains-prayers.h
tm
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa071600a.htm
because not only
does it give the government license to violate other's religious rights
on
the grounds of private religious freedom, it gives government employees
special privileges that the average citizen does not have.
That said, I doubt you have the guts to confront your hypocrisy so I'll
just
say that I won and let you slink off underneath some rock.
Just about everything you wrote is demonstrably proven wrong.
So, go beat your chest like Tarzan and say "I won" all day. The actual
record stands.
No, I'll just shake my head in disdain for your inability to confront my
point.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ambrose searle" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
25 Nov 2003 10:29:14 PM |
|
|
"Dave Thompson" <dav13795@wdmdx1.com> wrote in message news:<vs78lsqtthudb5@corp.supernews.com>...
"ambrose searle" <ambrosesearle@yahoo.com> wrote in message
My knowledge of government and law, what you quaintly call civics, is just
fine. At least I understand the role a government official plays while on
the clock compared to thier role as a private citizen.
A government employee does not forfeit his civil rights when he comes
to work.
The only government employees that are forbidden by the first
amendment from expressing their religion in their work are
legislators.
Searle
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
25 Nov 2003 10:38:27 PM |
|
|
"ambrose searle" <ambrosesearle@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fe9a0c54.0311252029.30a04d1e@posting.google.com...
"Dave Thompson" <dav13795@wdmdx1.com> wrote in message
news:<vs78lsqtthudb5@corp.supernews.com>...
"ambrose searle" <ambrosesearle@yahoo.com> wrote in message
My knowledge of government and law, what you quaintly call civics, is
just
fine. At least I understand the role a government official plays while
on
the clock compared to thier role as a private citizen.
A government employee does not forfeit his civil rights when he comes
to work.
The only government employees that are forbidden by the first
amendment from expressing their religion in their work are
legislators.
Nope. Public school teachers cannot preach on the public dime.
Enkidu
--
"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason
is like administering medicine to the dead."
-- Thomas Paine, in "The Age of Reason"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
25 Nov 2003 11:34:14 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 22:38:27 -0600, Enkidu wrote
(in message <R6Wwb.6610$ML6.1542@fed1read01>):
"ambrose searle" <ambrosesearle@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fe9a0c54.0311252029.30a04d1e@posting.google.com...
"Dave Thompson" <dav13795@wdmdx1.com> wrote in message
news:<vs78lsqtthudb5@corp.supernews.com>...
"ambrose searle" <ambrosesearle@yahoo.com> wrote in message
My knowledge of government and law, what you quaintly call civics, is
just
fine. At least I understand the role a government official plays while
on
the clock compared to thier role as a private citizen.
A government employee does not forfeit his civil rights when he comes
to work.
The only government employees that are forbidden by the first
amendment from expressing their religion in their work are
legislators.
Nope. Public school teachers cannot preach on the public dime.
Enkidu
In the military, it is not only illegal but - what is worse - it is
considered to be tacky.
Gray Shockley
--------------------------------------------------------
However, like sex, it is always a topic of
conversation on long field problems.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
