| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
30 Jun 2005 08:32:08 AM |
| Object: |
Re: I would welcome a strict interpretation |
"Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote:
:|The 10 Commandments -- to me -- are not a particularly offensive thing for
:|me to see hanging on the walls of the court house, or on the lawn of the
:|state capitol.
So? And this is important to say for what reason?
:\ I do not see any establishment of religion, and certainly not
:|a particular religion, in the 10 commandments.
Considering where you come from and have been coming from in your posts for
the past 3 years or so that I have been aware of your posts that is not
surprising.
:|I see more of a basis of law
:|than a recital of prayer, but that's just me I suppose. I don't know or care
:|if Budha has any pearls of wisdom that can be displayed by a public entity,
:|but if he does, then so be it, let's hang them on the wall somewhere. I
:|don't think we should have to have each and every nugget of how man should
:|behave toward his fellow man on the walls of each and every court house, but
:|if a jurisdiction wants a pearl, then they should hang a pearl. My issue
:|doesn't come until they hang a pearl, then convict me because I don't
:|subscribe to the source of the wisdom. When that happens, I'll be in front
:|of the judges arguing that government is enforcing religion on me, or
:|establilshing religion if that is the mantra. Personally, I think I'd LIKE
:|to see all of the nuggets of wisdom hung from the walls of the court house
:|because then I'd have the heads-up before I went inside that the judge might
:|be looking for sorry asses like me. If I felt he was going to abuse me
:|because my religion was non-existant, or different than his, it would be
:|good for me to know he had a slant before he threw the book at me.
:|
:|The problem I see here is that the very same court ruled both in favor of
:|the 10 Commandments on public property and against the 10 Commandments on
:|public property in the span of about a half-hour. This means that each and
:|every 10 Commandments case will need to rise to the USSC to be decided. This
:|seems to me to be hugely problematic. It seems to me that there is scant
:|measuring stick that can be used to determine which kind of display is OK
:|and which isn't. It seems that the longer a display can go without challenge
:|is the measure of just how suitable it might be. This is a ***** poor
:|measuring stick, if you ask me. In Kentucky, the justices seemed to say that
:|because the display was pointed out early, then it couldn't be remedied no
:|matter how hard they tried to bring in the ***** they left out. But, in
:|Texas, the court said that because the display was there for 40 or 50 years
:|without complaint, then it must be OK. Time ought not be the yardstick that
:|the USSC uses to decide this sort of stuff. What the USSC should do is say
:|that the 10 Commandments is not a strictly religious endeavor, and is
:|therefore suitable for public displays, or it should say that it is
:|inherently religious and not suitable. My preference is for the former, but
:|I think we should have more religion of all kinds in the public sphere, not
:|less, even when the religion that comes about isn't my particular brand.
Jeffy, Jeffy, Jeffy, when will you learn to listen to those you want to
ignore because in your mind they aren't good conservatives or religious
right types
Some of us really do know what we are talking about
Here is some background to this
THE REAL HISTORY OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS PROJECT,
OF THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF EAGLES
by Sue A. Hoffman
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hoffman01.htm
Breyer was off base with his comments about never been challenged before.
That particular display perhaps has not been challenged earlier, but of the
same Eagles project have been challenged all over the country and lower
courts have ruled one all but one or two cases that they violated the
Constitution
Here is the real bottom line with regards to this case
***********************************************************************************
We have pictures of the 10 Commandment display and the overall display that
the 10 Commandments is just one part of on the statehouse grounds in
Austin, Texas
Check them out in the photo section of this group
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
Also note that you can enlarge the pics
The 10 Commandments display is #9 on the grounds
The truth is that this display is very similar to the over all theme of the
artwork of the USSC building in DC.
Though the theme of the USSC building is histroy of law the 10 commandments
are in no way shape of form singled out or emphasized at the USSC. One can
even argue if they are truly represented there or not.
At the Austin, Texas display the 10 Commandments are only one of a number
of displays
1. Hood's Brigade
2 Heros of the Alamo
3 Confederate Soldiers
4 Volunteer firemen
5 Terry';s Texas Rangers
6 Texas Cowboy
7 "The Hiker"
8 36th Infantry
9 Ten Commandments
10 Tribute to Texas Children
11 Texas Pioneer Women
12 Statue of Liberty Replica
13 Pearl Harbor Veterans
14 Korean War Veterans
15 Soldiers of WWI
16 Disabled Veterans
17 Texas police Officers
The overall display seems to be a mixed theme, partly Texas, partly USA,
partly history, partly military, kind of random hodge podge. There is no
religious theme nor any law or history of law theme or even a govt theme.
They could have been removed and wouldn't have altered in any manner what
was still there. I can't say that they add anything to what is already
there or distract from it.
But, it is a bit hard to say positively that it represents a endorsement of
religion within the overall context the Ten Commandments marker is set.
It is just as hard, as well, to say it really belongs there. It does seem
sort of out of place there, but the over all context is such that it gave
the court an opportunity to doge that bullet just as they did with the
"under God" ruling last term.
They are getting very good at dodging the bullet.
***************************************************************************
The difference that the court hung its hat on was context between the two
cases.
Did you even bother to read the rulings, no, probably not, you seldom if
ever do.
For more information I offer you this as well
* The Ten Commandments Issues
o The Complete Ten Commandments, a Study Guide
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/10commsg.htm
The Supreme Court Draws the Correct Ten Commandments Line:
Why the Texas Display Was Constitutional, and the Kentucky Display Was Not
By MARCI HAMILTON
hamilton02@aol.com
----
Wednesday, Jun. 29, 2005
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20050629.html
[EXCERPT]
This week, the Supreme Court handed down its decisions in this Term's
much-watched Ten Commandments cases, McCreary and Van Orden. As many
observers anticipated, and as I predicted in a prior column, [
actually she broke it up into two columns ]
http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/hamilton/20050310.html
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20050322.html
the Court upheld the Texas display, but invalidated the Kentucky
display. In so doing, it dealt a blow to those who would coopt
government for their religious messages.
Observers may wonder: How can the Court say one display is
constitutional and the other is not? It's the same Ten Commandments.
[END EXCERPT]
* Two Important Establishment Clause Issues The Supreme Court Will
Decide This Term, Relating to The Ten Commandments and a Key Federal
Statute
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20041021.html
* Judge Roy Moore and the Ten Commandments Controversy Why He Was Not A
Fit Justice, Won't Be A Fit Governor, And Belongs in the Private Sphere
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20031118.html
* The Ten Commandments and American Law Why Some Christians' Claims to
Legal Hegemony Are Not Consistent with the Historical Record
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20030911.html
* The Ten Commandments in Court: Power And Its Abuse
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20020314.html
*****************************************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and the discussion group for the above site 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: "Clear to partly cloudy" |
|
| Title: Re: I would welcome a strict interpretation |
30 Jun 2005 08:40:43 AM |
|
|
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:6rs7c1dm32uhr2qq97vm448jmpl10ogns9@4ax.com...
"Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote:
:|The 10 Commandments -- to me -- are not a particularly offensive thing
for
:|me to see hanging on the walls of the court house, or on the lawn of
the
:|state capitol.
So? And this is important to say for what reason?
:\ I do not see any establishment of religion, and certainly not
:|a particular religion, in the 10 commandments.
Is there anything in the constitution that prohibits the display of
religious symbols on public property? I'm kinda old fashioned and think that
sticking with the owners manual is much better than freelancing.
--
Come to sunny Laredo, Texas
Where the bullets are flying and
the people are always clear
to partly cloudy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: I would welcome a strict interpretation |
30 Jun 2005 12:00:27 PM |
|
|
"Clear to partly cloudy" <ctpc2456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vDSwe.335543$eh1.311794@fe07.news.easynews.com...
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:6rs7c1dm32uhr2qq97vm448jmpl10ogns9@4ax.com...
"Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote:
:|The 10 Commandments -- to me -- are not a particularly offensive
thing
for
:|me to see hanging on the walls of the court house, or on the lawn of
the
:|state capitol.
So? And this is important to say for what reason?
:\ I do not see any establishment of religion, and certainly not
:|a particular religion, in the 10 commandments.
Is there anything in the constitution that prohibits the display of
religious symbols on public property? I'm kinda old fashioned and think
that
sticking with the owners manual is much better than freelancing.
That seems to be the $64,000 question. The short answer is no. The longer
answer is yes. But, it takes a very liberal view of the Constitution to come
to the yes answer, and a very conservative view to arrive at no.
If we look only at the verbiage contained within the Constitution, and at
actions taking place at the time, and things that are still with us after
200+ years, then we should be able to have 10 Commandment monuments if a
community wants to have them. We should be able to have a county seal with a
cross that symbolizes the significant role that religion played in the
county's history, indeed the entire state's history.
But, if we take a broader view and look for hidden meaning, or ascribe
meaning where there is none, then we come away with the view that there
needs to be a strict and constant division between church and state.
I think that the division needs to not be in the historical recognition of
religion and the obvious role it plays on society, but rather it needs to be
in actual entanglement of religion and government. We probably don't want
kids to be cracking Bibles in schools, but we shouldn't prevent a student
speaker at the graduation ceremony from reciting his pearls of wisdom that
he has gleamed from Biblical passages. We should be able to pray that God
protect the players at a football game, but we should not be required to
hold such a prayer. If a school wants to pray before a game, then fine, but
if the school district puts it in the education code that a prayer must be
held, then we have trouble. If a school wants to have a prayer before a
game, then maybe the prayer should be given by a student volunteer, a
different volunteer each week to keep the school from being put in the
position of actually foisting religion on the student body. When Johnny or
Suzy gives the invocation, then the rest of the kids can take it or leave
it, but when Mr. Jones or Ms. Smith -- school administrators or teachers --
give the invocation, then the students might feel pressure to adopt
religion. If in any given football game, there is a spectator that doesn't
want to hear about religion, or wants to hear a different religion, tough
*****. Get over it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clear to partly cloudy" |
|
| Title: Re: I would welcome a strict interpretation |
30 Jun 2005 01:20:04 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote in message
news:-NCdnSASGawuuVnfRVn-oA@ez2.net...
"Clear to partly cloudy" <ctpc2456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vDSwe.335543$eh1.311794@fe07.news.easynews.com...
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:6rs7c1dm32uhr2qq97vm448jmpl10ogns9@4ax.com...
"Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote:
:|The 10 Commandments -- to me -- are not a particularly offensive
thing
for
:|me to see hanging on the walls of the court house, or on the lawn
of
the
:|state capitol.
So? And this is important to say for what reason?
:\ I do not see any establishment of religion, and certainly not
:|a particular religion, in the 10 commandments.
Is there anything in the constitution that prohibits the display of
religious symbols on public property? I'm kinda old fashioned and think
that
sticking with the owners manual is much better than freelancing.
That seems to be the $64,000 question. The short answer is no. The longer
answer is yes. But, it takes a very liberal view of the Constitution to
come
to the yes answer, and a very conservative view to arrive at no.
If we look only at the verbiage contained within the Constitution, and at
actions taking place at the time, and things that are still with us after
200+ years, then we should be able to have 10 Commandment monuments if a
community wants to have them. We should be able to have a county seal with
a
cross that symbolizes the significant role that religion played in the
county's history, indeed the entire state's history.
But, if we take a broader view and look for hidden meaning, or ascribe
meaning where there is none, then we come away with the view that there
needs to be a strict and constant division between church and state.
I think that the division needs to not be in the historical recognition of
religion and the obvious role it plays on society, but rather it needs to
be
in actual entanglement of religion and government. We probably don't want
kids to be cracking Bibles in schools, but we shouldn't prevent a student
speaker at the graduation ceremony from reciting his pearls of wisdom that
he has gleamed from Biblical passages. We should be able to pray that God
protect the players at a football game, but we should not be required to
hold such a prayer. If a school wants to pray before a game, then fine,
but
if the school district puts it in the education code that a prayer must be
held, then we have trouble. If a school wants to have a prayer before a
game, then maybe the prayer should be given by a student volunteer, a
different volunteer each week to keep the school from being put in the
position of actually foisting religion on the student body. When Johnny or
Suzy gives the invocation, then the rest of the kids can take it or leave
it, but when Mr. Jones or Ms. Smith -- school administrators or
teachers --
give the invocation, then the students might feel pressure to adopt
religion. If in any given football game, there is a spectator that doesn't
want to hear about religion, or wants to hear a different religion, tough
*****. Get over it.
Well put.
--
Come to sunny Laredo, Texas
Where the bullets are flying and
the people are always clear
to partly cloudy.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: I would welcome a strict interpretation |
05 Jul 2005 12:14:45 PM |
|
|
"Clear to partly cloudy" <ctpc2456@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|Is there anything in the constitution that prohibits the display of
:|religious symbols on public property? I'm kinda old fashioned and think that
:|sticking with the owners manual is much better than freelancing.
Yes there is it is called separation of church and state.
Public property isn't private, it is owned by the public.
That would mean those portions of the public that are believers in some
religion and those that aren't
There is no way that one could create a religious symbol that would honor
and do justice to all the various religious beliefs nor would it be fair to
that portion of the public that was non believers
That situation existed once, Colonial times and times up until the breaking
away in 1776
The founders worked very hard to break those unions that had existed
creating that very situation.
They created a church state separation clause in the unamended constitution
and further reinforced that separation with the Establishment and Free
Exercise Clause
That was the owners manual I was speaking of
*****************************************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and the discussion group for the above site 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: I would welcome a strict interpretation |
05 Jul 2005 12:40:17 PM |
|
|
<buckeyeelo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:kuflc11mjqp1ecvrhs0glmrbtdrs0if06g@4ax.com...
"Clear to partly cloudy" <ctpc2456@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|Is there anything in the constitution that prohibits the display of
:|religious symbols on public property? I'm kinda old fashioned and think
that
:|sticking with the owners manual is much better than freelancing.
Yes there is it is called separation of church and state.
I thought that was just some fantasy that Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter
to a bunch of religious nuts. Heck, he didn't even come up with phrase, did
he. Could you point out the phrase "separation of church and state" in the
constitution for me?
--
-
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: I would welcome a strict interpretation |
07 Jul 2005 06:01:22 AM |
|
|
"-" <__@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|
:|<buckeyeelo@nospam.net> wrote in message
:|news:kuflc11mjqp1ecvrhs0glmrbtdrs0if06g@4ax.com...
:|> "Clear to partly cloudy" <ctpc2456@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|> >:|Is there anything in the constitution that prohibits the display of
:|> >:|religious symbols on public property? I'm kinda old fashioned and think
:|that
:|> >:|sticking with the owners manual is much better than freelancing.
:|>
:|> Yes there is it is called separation of church and state.
:|
:|I thought that was just some fantasy that Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter
:|to a bunch of religious nuts.
You thought wrong.
:|Heck, he didn't even come up with phrase,
You are correct, not that it matters. Thomas Jefferson did not create or
establish church state separation neither in Virginia or the US.
The man most responsible for that was James Madison, not Thomas Jefferson.
But for the words I direct you to the following:
A Study Guide for the Words/Concept: "Separation of Church and State"
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd3.htm
:|did
:|he. Could you point out the phrase "separation of church and state" in the
:|constitution for me?
If I had a dollar for every time I have been asked that question or seen
others asked that question I would be quite wealthy by now.
What those who ask that question don't understand is, just how lame that
question that really is the and the other thing they don't understand is,
how it identifies them and labels them
Its labels them as being ignorant of history, ignorant of law, ignorant of
constitution writing and exactly what a constitution is and identifies
exactly where they are on the political spectrum.
The US Constitution has approx 4440 words. Do you honestly think, for even
a second, that everything is going to be spelled out in painfully detailed
prose?
That can be and might very well be the nature of statutes. It is not,
however, the nature of a constitution.
4. Constitutions are written in very broad terms. There are, of course,
exceptions to this, particularly with respect to the constitutions of local
governments. In the main, however, a common characteristic of
constitutional provisions is their broad language. How would you interpret
the following section?
Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or of the right of the people to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances.
How many words in this provision do you not understand? What is an
"establishment?" If the school board requires a "moment of silence" at the
beginning of each day, is the school board establishing a religion? What
does "abridging" mean? If a government official leaks secret documents to
the press, and the government tries to sue the press to prevent the
publication of the documents, has the "freedom" of the press been abridged?
If the people have a right to "assemble," could the government pass a law
prohibiting all gatherings of three or more people at any place within one
thousand yards of the White House gates? The questions arising from the
interpretation of constitutional law are endless; tens of thousands of
court opinions exist on questions such as these. The broader the language,
the more ambiguous it is, and therefore the greater the need for
interpretation.
5. A central question for the interpreter of constitutional law is, what
meaning did the authors intend? Common sense dictates that when language is
ambiguous, the ambiguity may be resolved in part by attempting to determine
what the author of the language intended by it. What was the author's
meaning? In what context was the author writing? Does the context shed any
light on what was meant? This kind of analysis is fundamental to legal
reasoning whether the document is a constitution, a statute, a regulation,
or a case. It is particularly `difficult to do, however, for a constitution
written over a hundred years ago.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Introduction to Paralegalism, Perspectives.
Problems, and Skills. Fourth Edition, William Statsky, West Publishing Co.
(1992) p 601
------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is written there is this:
The separation clause:
Article. VI.
.. . . but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to
any Office or public Trust under the United States.
The reinforcement clause:
Article the third [Amendment I] [1]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . .
Which was interpreted to mean:
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at
least this: neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.
Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer
one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go
to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a
belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for
entertaining [p*16] or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for
church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small,
can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever
they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice
religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or
secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or
groups, and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against
establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of
separation between church and State." Reynolds v. United States, supra, at
164.
Everson v . Board of Education of the Township of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1
(1947)
AND
The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The
Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as
incompetent as Congress to enact such laws. The constitutional inhibition
of legislation on the subject of religion has a double aspect. On the one
hand, it forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the
practice of any form of worship. Freedom of conscience and freedom to
adhere to such religious organization or form of worship as the individual
may choose cannot be restricted by law. On the other hand, it safeguards
the free exercise of the chosen form of religion. Thus the Amendment
embraces two concepts,-freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is
absolute but, in the nature of things, the [310 U.S. 296, 304] second
cannot be. Conduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of
society. (4) The freedom to act must have appropriate definition to
preserve the enforcement of that protection. In every case the power to
regulate must be so exercised as not, in attaining a permissible end,
unduly to infringe the protected freedom. No one would contest the
proposition that a state may not, be statute, wholly deny the right to
preach or to disseminate religious views. Plainly such a previous and
absolute restraint would violate the terms of the guarantee. (5) It is
equally clear that a state may by general and non-discriminatory
legislation regulate the times, the places, and the manner of soliciting
upon its streets, and of holding meetings thereon; and may in other
respects safeguard the peace, good order and comfort of the community,
without unconstitutionally invading the liberties protected by the
Fourteenth Amendment.
CANTWELL v. STATE OF CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296 (1940).
================================================
NOW TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION not that I think for a single second you really
want the historical and legal facts,
You will find it here
Study Guide: Separation of Church and State - Indepth
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd0.htm
and here
The Establishment Clause
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/estclause.htm
Now it really is a shame that you are so reluctant to coem over and join us
at the following. We have another texan there, from Austin, Texas, and
history expert. Opposite viewpoits of yours.
It would be interestign to see you both working your views but alas,
doesn't a[ppear like you are willing.
*****************************************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and the discussion group for the above site 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: I would welcome a strict interpretation |
07 Jul 2005 07:21:39 AM |
|
|
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:eq2qc1treim9sjtvd0kdeedsnsqqlav6jh@4ax.com...
"-" <__@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|
:|<buckeyeelo@nospam.net> wrote in message
:|news:kuflc11mjqp1ecvrhs0glmrbtdrs0if06g@4ax.com...
:|> "Clear to partly cloudy" <ctpc2456@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|> >:|Is there anything in the constitution that prohibits the display
of
:|> >:|religious symbols on public property? I'm kinda old fashioned and
think
:|that
:|> >:|sticking with the owners manual is much better than freelancing.
:|>
:|> Yes there is it is called separation of church and state.
:|
:|I thought that was just some fantasy that Thomas Jefferson wrote in a
letter
:|to a bunch of religious nuts.
You thought wrong.
:|Heck, he didn't even come up with phrase,
You are correct, not that it matters. Thomas Jefferson did not create or
establish church state separation neither in Virginia or the US.
The man most responsible for that was James Madison, not Thomas Jefferson.
But for the words I direct you to the following:
A Study Guide for the Words/Concept: "Separation of Church and State"
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd3.htm
:|did
:|he. Could you point out the phrase "separation of church and state" in
the
:|constitution for me?
If I had a dollar for every time I have been asked that question or seen
others asked that question I would be quite wealthy by now.
If I had a dollar for everytime someone claimed it was in there and couldn't
produce, I'd be rich too.
--
-
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: I would welcome a strict interpretation |
11 Jul 2005 11:11:14 AM |
|
|
"-" <__@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|> >:|I thought that was just some fantasy that Thomas Jefferson wrote in a
:|letter
:|> >:|to a bunch of religious nuts.
:|>
:|>
:|> You thought wrong.
:|>
:|> >:|Heck, he didn't even come up with phrase,
:|>
:|> You are correct, not that it matters. Thomas Jefferson did not create or
:|> establish church state separation neither in Virginia or the US.
:|> The man most responsible for that was James Madison, not Thomas Jefferson.
:|>
:|> But for the words I direct you to the following:
:|>
:|> A Study Guide for the Words/Concept: "Separation of Church and State"
:|> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd3.htm
:|>
:|> >:|did
:|> >:|he. Could you point out the phrase "separation of church and state" in
:|the
:|> >:|constitution for me?
:|>
:|> If I had a dollar for every time I have been asked that question or seen
:|> others asked that question I would be quite wealthy by now.
:|
:|
:|If I had a dollar for everytime someone claimed it was in there and couldn't
:|produce, I'd be rich too.
Nice cop put and dance away. Just for the record I have never claimed the
words separation of church and state were there, but I have shown time and
time again that the Constitutional principle was and is there and you sure
as hell will never be able to show it isn't there
"-" <__@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|
:|<buckeyeelo@nospam.net> wrote in message
:|news:kuflc11mjqp1ecvrhs0glmrbtdrs0if06g@4ax.com...
:|> "Clear to partly cloudy" <ctpc2456@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|> >:|Is there anything in the constitution that prohibits the display of
:|> >:|religious symbols on public property? I'm kinda old fashioned and think
:|that
:|> >:|sticking with the owners manual is much better than freelancing.
:|>
:|> Yes there is it is called separation of church and state.
:|
:|I thought that was just some fantasy that Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter
:|to a bunch of religious nuts.
You thought wrong.
:|Heck, he didn't even come up with phrase,
You are correct, not that it matters. Thomas Jefferson did not create or
establish church state separation neither in Virginia or the US.
The man most responsible for that was James Madison, not Thomas Jefferson.
But for the words I direct you to the following:
A Study Guide for the Words/Concept: "Separation of Church and State"
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd3.htm
:|did
:|he. Could you point out the phrase "separation of church and state" in the
:|constitution for me?
If I had a dollar for every time I have been asked that question or seen
others asked that question I would be quite wealthy by now.
What those who ask that question don't understand is, just how lame that
question that really is the and the other thing they don't understand is,
how it identifies them and labels them
Its labels them as being ignorant of history, ignorant of law, ignorant of
constitution writing and exactly what a constitution is and identifies
exactly where they are on the political spectrum.
The US Constitution has approx 4440 words. Do you honestly think, for even
a second, that everything is going to be spelled out in painfully detailed
prose?
That can be and might very well be the nature of statutes. It is not,
however, the nature of a constitution.
4. Constitutions are written in very broad terms. There are, of course,
exceptions to this, particularly with respect to the constitutions of local
governments. In the main, however, a common characteristic of
constitutional provisions is their broad language. How would you interpret
the following section?
Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or of the right of the people to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances.
How many words in this provision do you not understand? What is an
"establishment?" If the school board requires a "moment of silence" at the
beginning of each day, is the school board establishing a religion? What
does "abridging" mean? If a government official leaks secret documents to
the press, and the government tries to sue the press to prevent the
publication of the documents, has the "freedom" of the press been abridged?
If the people have a right to "assemble," could the government pass a law
prohibiting all gatherings of three or more people at any place within one
thousand yards of the White House gates? The questions arising from the
interpretation of constitutional law are endless; tens of thousands of
court opinions exist on questions such as these. The broader the language,
the more ambiguous it is, and therefore the greater the need for
interpretation.
5. A central question for the interpreter of constitutional law is, what
meaning did the authors intend? Common sense dictates that when language is
ambiguous, the ambiguity may be resolved in part by attempting to determine
what the author of the language intended by it. What was the author's
meaning? In what context was the author writing? Does the context shed any
light on what was meant? This kind of analysis is fundamental to legal
reasoning whether the document is a constitution, a statute, a regulation,
or a case. It is particularly `difficult to do, however, for a constitution
written over a hundred years ago.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Introduction to Paralegalism, Perspectives.
Problems, and Skills. Fourth Edition, William Statsky, West Publishing Co.
(1992) p 601
------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is written there is this:
The separation clause:
Article. VI.
.. . . but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to
any Office or public Trust under the United States.
The reinforcement clause:
Article the third [Amendment I] [1]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . .
Which was interpreted to mean:
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at
least this: neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.
Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer
one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go
to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a
belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for
entertaining [p*16] or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for
church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small,
can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever
they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice
religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or
secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or
groups, and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against
establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of
separation between church and State." Reynolds v. United States, supra, at
164.
Everson v . Board of Education of the Township of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1
(1947)
AND
The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The
Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as
incompetent as Congress to enact such laws. The constitutional inhibition
of legislation on the subject of religion has a double aspect. On the one
hand, it forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the
practice of any form of worship. Freedom of conscience and freedom to
adhere to such religious organization or form of worship as the individual
may choose cannot be restricted by law. On the other hand, it safeguards
the free exercise of the chosen form of religion. Thus the Amendment
embraces two concepts,-freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is
absolute but, in the nature of things, the [310 U.S. 296, 304] second
cannot be. Conduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of
society. (4) The freedom to act must have appropriate definition to
preserve the enforcement of that protection. In every case the power to
regulate must be so exercised as not, in attaining a permissible end,
unduly to infringe the protected freedom. No one would contest the
proposition that a state may not, be statute, wholly deny the right to
preach or to disseminate religious views. Plainly such a previous and
absolute restraint would violate the terms of the guarantee. (5) It is
equally clear that a state may by general and non-discriminatory
legislation regulate the times, the places, and the manner of soliciting
upon its streets, and of holding meetings thereon; and may in other
respects safeguard the peace, good order and comfort of the community,
without unconstitutionally invading the liberties protected by the
Fourteenth Amendment.
CANTWELL v. STATE OF CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296 (1940).
================================================
NOW TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION not that I think for a single second you really
want the historical and legal facts,
You will find it here
Study Guide: Separation of Church and State - Indepth
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd0.htm
and here
The Establishment Clause
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/estclause.htm
Now it really is a shame that you are so reluctant to coem over and join us
at the following. We have another texan there, from Austin, Texas, and
history expert. Opposite viewpoits of yours.
It would be interestign to see you both working your views but alas,
doesn't a[ppear like you are willing.
*****************************************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and the discussion group for the above site 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: I would welcome a strict interpretation |
11 Jul 2005 11:34:24 AM |
|
|
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:ja65d15qtehnc7frl6k3aspkuntbdl6p0d@4ax.com...
"-" <__@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|> >:|I thought that was just some fantasy that Thomas Jefferson wrote
in a
:|letter
:|> >:|to a bunch of religious nuts.
:|>
:|>
:|> You thought wrong.
:|>
:|> >:|Heck, he didn't even come up with phrase,
:|>
:|> You are correct, not that it matters. Thomas Jefferson did not create
or
:|> establish church state separation neither in Virginia or the US.
:|> The man most responsible for that was James Madison, not Thomas
Jefferson.
:|>
:|> But for the words I direct you to the following:
:|>
:|> A Study Guide for the Words/Concept: "Separation of Church and State"
:|> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd3.htm
:|>
:|> >:|did
:|> >:|he. Could you point out the phrase "separation of church and
state" in
:|the
:|> >:|constitution for me?
:|>
:|> If I had a dollar for every time I have been asked that question or
seen
:|> others asked that question I would be quite wealthy by now.
:|
:|
:|If I had a dollar for everytime someone claimed it was in there and
couldn't
:|produce, I'd be rich too.
Nice cop put and dance away.
Sorry, but incoherence is above my pay grade.
--
-
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: I would welcome a strict interpretation |
12 Jul 2005 08:17:43 AM |
|
|
"-" <__@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|
:|<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
:|news:ja65d15qtehnc7frl6k3aspkuntbdl6p0d@4ax.com...
:|> "-" <__@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|>
:|> >:|> >:|I thought that was just some fantasy that Thomas Jefferson wrote
:|in a
:|> >:|letter
:|> >:|> >:|to a bunch of religious nuts.
:|> >:|>
:|> >:|>
:|> >:|> You thought wrong.
:|> >:|>
:|> >:|> >:|Heck, he didn't even come up with phrase,
:|> >:|>
:|> >:|> You are correct, not that it matters. Thomas Jefferson did not create
:|or
:|> >:|> establish church state separation neither in Virginia or the US.
:|> >:|> The man most responsible for that was James Madison, not Thomas
:|Jefferson.
:|> >:|>
:|> >:|> But for the words I direct you to the following:
:|> >:|>
:|> >:|> A Study Guide for the Words/Concept: "Separation of Church and State"
:|> >:|> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd3.htm
:|> >:|>
:|> >:|> >:|did
:|> >:|> >:|he. Could you point out the phrase "separation of church and
:|state" in
:|> >:|the
:|> >:|> >:|constitution for me?
:|> >:|>
:|> >:|> If I had a dollar for every time I have been asked that question or
:|seen
:|> >:|> others asked that question I would be quite wealthy by now.
:|> >:|
:|> >:|
:|> >:|If I had a dollar for everytime someone claimed it was in there and
:|couldn't
:|> >:|produce, I'd be rich too.
:|>
:|>
:|> Nice cop put and dance away.
:|
:|Sorry, but incoherence is above my pay grade.
So is history apprently.
The meaning, if it was really over your head, was you, in plain words,
copoed out. You side stepped and tried walk away from that whuich was
presented rather than actually dealing with it addressing it etc.
TRY AGAIN
:|If I had a dollar for everytime someone claimed it was in there and couldn't
:|produce, I'd be rich too.
Nice cop put and dance away. Just for the record I have never claimed the
words separation of church and state were there, but I have shown time and
time again that the Constitutional principle was and is there and you sure
as hell will never be able to show it isn't there
"-" <__@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|
:|<buckeyeelo@nospam.net> wrote in message
:|news:kuflc11mjqp1ecvrhs0glmrbtdrs0if06g@4ax.com...
:|> "Clear to partly cloudy" <ctpc2456@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|> >:|Is there anything in the constitution that prohibits the display of
:|> >:|religious symbols on public property? I'm kinda old fashioned and think
:|that
:|> >:|sticking with the owners manual is much better than freelancing.
:|>
:|> Yes there is it is called separation of church and state.
:|
:|I thought that was just some fantasy that Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter
:|to a bunch of religious nuts.
You thought wrong.
:|Heck, he didn't even come up with phrase,
You are correct, not that it matters. Thomas Jefferson did not create or
establish church state separation neither in Virginia or the US.
The man most responsible for that was James Madison, not Thomas Jefferson.
But for the words I direct you to the following:
A Study Guide for the Words/Concept: "Separation of Church and State"
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd3.htm
:|did
:|he. Could you point out the phrase "separation of church and state" in the
:|constitution for me?
If I had a dollar for every time I have been asked that question or seen
others asked that question I would be quite wealthy by now.
What those who ask that question don't understand is, just how lame that
question that really is the and the other thing they don't understand is,
how it identifies them and labels them
Its labels them as being ignorant of history, ignorant of law, ignorant of
constitution writing and exactly what a constitution is and identifies
exactly where they are on the political spectrum.
The US Constitution has approx 4440 words. Do you honestly think, for even
a second, that everything is going to be spelled out in painfully detailed
prose?
That can be and might very well be the nature of statutes. It is not,
however, the nature of a constitution.
4. Constitutions are written in very broad terms. There are, of course,
exceptions to this, particularly with respect to the constitutions of local
governments. In the main, however, a common characteristic of
constitutional provisions is their broad language. How would you interpret
the following section?
Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or of the right of the people to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances.
How many words in this provision do you not understand? What is an
"establishment?" If the school board requires a "moment of silence" at the
beginning of each day, is the school board establishing a religion? What
does "abridging" mean? If a government official leaks secret documents to
the press, and the government tries to sue the press to prevent the
publication of the documents, has the "freedom" of the press been abridged?
If the people have a right to "assemble," could the government pass a law
prohibiting all gatherings of three or more people at any place within one
thousand yards of the White House gates? The questions arising from the
interpretation of constitutional law are endless; tens of thousands of
court opinions exist on questions such as these. The broader the language,
the more ambiguous it is, and therefore the greater the need for
interpretation.
5. A central question for the interpreter of constitutional law is, what
meaning did the authors intend? Common sense dictates that when language is
ambiguous, the ambiguity may be resolved in part by attempting to determine
what the author of the language intended by it. What was the author's
meaning? In what context was the author writing? Does the context shed any
light on what was meant? This kind of analysis is fundamental to legal
reasoning whether the document is a constitution, a statute, a regulation,
or a case. It is particularly `difficult to do, however, for a constitution
written over a hundred years ago.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Introduction to Paralegalism, Perspectives.
Problems, and Skills. Fourth Edition, William Statsky, West Publishing Co.
(1992) p 601
------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is written there is this:
The separation clause:
Article. VI.
.. . . but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to
any Office or public Trust under the United States.
The reinforcement clause:
Article the third [Amendment I] [1]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . .
Which was interpreted to mean:
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at
least this: neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.
Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer
one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go
to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a
belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for
entertaining [p*16] or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for
church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small,
can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever
they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice
religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or
secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or
groups, and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against
establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of
separation between church and State." Reynolds v. United States, supra, at
164.
Everson v . Board of Education of the Township of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1
(1947)
AND
The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The
Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as
incompetent as Congress to enact such laws. The constitutional inhibition
of legislation on the subject of religion has a double aspect. On the one
hand, it forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the
practice of any form of worship. Freedom of conscience and freedom to
adhere to such religious organization or form of worship as the individual
may choose cannot be restricted by law. On the other hand, it safeguards
the free exercise of the chosen form of religion. Thus the Amendment
embraces two concepts,-freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is
absolute but, in the nature of things, the [310 U.S. 296, 304] second
cannot be. Conduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of
society. (4) The freedom to act must have appropriate definition to
preserve the enforcement of that protection. In every case the power to
regulate must be so exercised as not, in attaining a permissible end,
unduly to infringe the protected freedom. No one would contest the
proposition that a state may not, be statute, wholly deny the right to
preach or to disseminate religious views. Plainly such a previous and
absolute restraint would violate the terms of the guarantee. (5) It is
equally clear that a state may by general and non-discriminatory
legislation regulate the times, the places, and the manner of soliciting
upon its streets, and of holding meetings thereon; and may in other
respects safeguard the peace, good order and comfort of the community,
without unconstitutionally invading the liberties protected by the
Fourteenth Amendment.
CANTWELL v. STATE OF CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296 (1940).
================================================
NOW TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION not that I think for a single second you really
want the historical and legal facts,
You will find it here
Study Guide: Separation of Church and State - Indepth
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd0.htm
and here
The Establishment Clause
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/estclause.htm
Now it really is a shame that you are so reluctant to coem over and join us
at the following. We have another texan there, from Austin, Texas, and
history expert. Opposite viewpoits of yours.
It would be interestign to see you both working your views but alas,
doesn't a[ppear like you are willing.
*****************************************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and the discussion group for the above site 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: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: I would welcome a stripped interpretation |
11 Jul 2005 03:25:13 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 11:34:24 -0500, hotmail.com wrote
(in article <kcxAe.272143$3V6.116134@fe04.news.easynews.com>):
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:ja65d15qtehnc7frl6k3aspkuntbdl6p0d@4ax.com...
"-" <__@hotmail.com> wrote:
I thought that was just some fantasy that Thomas Jefferson wrote
in a
letter
to a bunch of religious nuts.
You thought wrong.
Heck, he didn't even come up with phrase,
You are correct, not that it matters. Thomas Jefferson did not create
or
establish church state separation neither in Virginia or the US.
The man most responsible for that was James Madison, not Thomas
Jefferson.
But for the words I direct you to the following:
A Study Guide for the Words/Concept: "Separation of Church and State"
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd3.htm
did
he. Could you point out the phrase "separation of church and
state" in
the
constitution for me?
If I had a dollar for every time I have been asked that question or
seen
others asked that question I would be quite wealthy by now.
If I had a dollar for everytime someone claimed it was in there and
couldn't
produce, I'd be rich too.
Nice cop put and dance away.
Sorry, but incoherence is above my pay grade.
You're eligible for promotion.
Gray Shockley
--------------------------
"Swinehood hath no remedy." - Sidney Lanier
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: I would welcome a strict interpretation |
11 Jul 2005 01:03:24 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 16:34:24 GMT, "-" <__@hotmail.com> wrote:
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:ja65d15qtehnc7frl6k3aspkuntbdl6p0d@4ax.com...
"-" <__@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|> >:|I thought that was just some fantasy that Thomas Jefferson wrote
in a
:|letter
:|> >:|to a bunch of religious nuts.
:|>
:|>
:|> You thought wrong.
:|>
:|> >:|Heck, he didn't even come up with phrase,
:|>
:|> You are correct, not that it matters. Thomas Jefferson did not create
or
:|> establish church state separation neither in Virginia or the US.
:|> The man most responsible for that was James Madison, not Thomas
Jefferson.
:|>
:|> But for the words I direct you to the following:
:|>
:|> A Study Guide for the Words/Concept: "Separation of Church and State"
:|> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd3.htm
:|>
:|> >:|did
:|> >:|he. Could you point out the phrase "separation of church and
state" in
:|the
:|> >:|constitution for me?
:|>
:|> If I had a dollar for every time I have been asked that question or
seen
:|> others asked that question I would be quite wealthy by now.
:|
:|
:|If I had a dollar for everytime someone claimed it was in there and
couldn't
:|produce, I'd be rich too.
Nice cop put and dance away.
Sorry, but incoherence is above my pay grade.
Since, whether constitutionally mandated or not, true separation of church and
state has never existed in the US, what difference does it make?
.
|
|
|
| User: "-" |
|
| Title: Re: I would welcome a strict interpretation |
11 Jul 2005 02:30:48 PM |
|
|
"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:g0d5d1l51tffc5ka2e4hcq39ot5de30a78@4ax.com...
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 16:34:24 GMT, "-" <__@hotmail.com> wrote:
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:ja65d15qtehnc7frl6k3aspkuntbdl6p0d@4ax.com...
"-" <__@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|> >:|I thought that was just some fantasy that Thomas Jefferson
wrote
in a
:|letter
:|> >:|to a bunch of religious nuts.
:|>
:|>
:|> You thought wrong.
:|>
:|> >:|Heck, he didn't even come up with phrase,
:|>
:|> You are correct, not that it matters. Thomas Jefferson did not
create
or
:|> establish church state separation neither in Virginia or the US.
:|> The man most responsible for that was James Madison, not Thomas
Jefferson.
:|>
:|> But for the words I direct you to the following:
:|>
:|> A Study Guide for the Words/Concept: "Separation of Church and
State"
:|> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd3.htm
:|>
:|> >:|did
:|> >:|he. Could you point out the phrase "separation of church and
state" in
:|the
:|> >:|constitution for me?
:|>
:|> If I had a dollar for every time I have been asked that question
or
seen
:|> others asked that question I would be quite wealthy by now.
:|
:|
:|If I had a dollar for everytime someone claimed it was in there and
couldn't
:|produce, I'd be rich too.
Nice cop put and dance away.
Sorry, but incoherence is above my pay grade.
Since, whether constitutionally mandated or not, true separation of church
and
state has never existed in the US, what difference does it make?
It makes lots of difference. If the matter is ever settled one way or
another, millions of dollars in lawering fees will be lost.
--
-
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: I would welcome a strict interpretation |
12 Jul 2005 08:12:26 AM |
|
|
John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:
:|On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 16:34:24 GMT, "-" <__@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|
:|>
:|><buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
:|>news:ja65d15qtehnc7frl6k3aspkuntbdl6p0d@4ax.com...
:|>> "-" <__@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|>>
:|>> >:|> >:|I thought that was just some fantasy that Thomas Jefferson wrote
:|>in a
:|>> >:|letter
:|>> >:|> >:|to a bunch of religious nuts.
:|>> >:|>
:|>> >:|>
:|>> >:|> You thought wrong.
:|>> >:|>
:|>> >:|> >:|Heck, he didn't even come up with phrase,
:|>> >:|>
:|>> >:|> You are correct, not that it matters. Thomas Jefferson did not create
:|>or
:|>> >:|> establish church state separation neither in Virginia or the US.
:|>> >:|> The man most responsible for that was James Madison, not Thomas
:|>Jefferson.
:|>> >:|>
:|>> >:|> But for the words I direct you to the following:
:|>> >:|>
:|>> >:|> A Study Guide for the Words/Concept: "Separation of Church and State"
:|>> >:|> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd3.htm
:|>> >:|>
:|>> >:|> >:|did
:|>> >:|> >:|he. Could you point out the phrase "separation of church and
:|>state" in
:|>> >:|the
:|>> >:|> >:|constitution for me?
:|>> >:|>
:|>> >:|> If I had a dollar for every time I have been asked that question or
:|>seen
:|>> >:|> others asked that question I would be quite wealthy by now.
:|>> >:|
:|>> >:|
:|>> >:|If I had a dollar for everytime someone claimed it was in there and
:|>couldn't
:|>> >:|produce, I'd be rich too.
:|>>
:|>>
:|>> Nice cop put and dance away.
:|>
:|>Sorry, but incoherence is above my pay grade.
:|
:|Since, whether constitutionally mandated or not, true separation of church and
:|state has never existed in the US,
it's a process
A Simple Test
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/simptest.htm
*************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and the discussion group for the above site 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: "The Bandit" |
|
| Title: Re: I would welcome a strict interpretation |
07 Jul 2005 06:34:18 AM |
|
|
wrote:
"Clear to partly cloudy" <ctpc2456@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|Is there anything in the constitution that prohibits the display of
:|religious symbols on public property? I'm kinda old fashioned and think that
:|sticking with the owners manual is much better than freelancing.
Yes there is it is called separation of church and state.
Public property isn't private, it is owned by the public.
That would mean those portions of the public that are believers in some
religion and those that aren't
Again, where is this so called "separation of church and state"
restriction be found? Oh I know you will, like a good little
pre-programed liberal, point to the first amendment.
But we all know the text and intent of the First Amendment's
"establishment" clause was, according to Supreme Court Justice Joseph
Story, ". . . to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects." And this
is confirmed by the preliminary draft of the First Amendment proposed
by James Madison to the House of Representatives in 1789:
"The Civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious
belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor
shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on
any pretext, infringed."
According to the Annals of Congress (1:434-435), reports:
"Mr. Madison thought, if the word 'National' was inserted before
religion, it would satisfy the minds of honorable gentlemen. He
believed that the people feared one sect might obtain a pre-eminence,
or two combined together, and establish a religion, to which they would
compel others to conform. He thought if the word 'National' was
introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was
intended to prevent."
And we know members of Congress expressed concern over Madison's
proposed language in that did not do enough to protect existing
state-established religions. Madison then moved to have the language
changed to prohibit the federal government from making any law
"respecting" an establishment of religion, thus accomplishing the twin
purposes of prohibiting the establishment of a national religion and of
preventing federal interference with the existing state churches.
The entire purpose of the establishment clause was not to erect a
"wall" of seperation between church and state or from preventing states
from having anything to do with anything godly or church, but to
protect the states doctrines and exercise of religion from the national
govt.
Any supreme court ruling to the contrary is indefensible and null and
void.
And there is no way the court can get around one of the most reverend
constitutional rules: "The government of the United States can claim no
powers which are not granted to it by the Constitution, either
expressly or by necessary implication."
Jefferson makes sure there is only one way to interpet the first
amendment:
"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this
ground--that all powers not delegated to the United States, by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the
states, or to the people, (12th amend.) To take a single step beyond
the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is
to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible
of any definition."
There is no way that one could create a religious symbol that would honor
and do justice to all the various religious beliefs nor would it be fair to
that portion of the public that was non believers
Read the preamble of the constitution you fool:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings
of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America."
For "OURSELVES," not for mexicans, asians or muslims, but for
ourselves!!! Who were we? Predominatly (85%) white english christians.
Half of the states at the time required "Christian oaths" for elected
officials before they could take office!! That is who "ourselves" are
and which liberals want to remove through liberal immigration and
policitcal correctness as they define what is correct.
Now put your buttplug back in your mouth and go watch cartoons.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: I would welcome a strict interpretation |
13 Jul 2005 12:43:14 PM |
|
|
"The Bandit" <no-reply@idexer.com> wrote:
:|buckeyeelo@nospam.net wrote:
:|> "Clear to partly cloudy" <ctpc2456@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|> >:|Is there anything in the constitution that prohibits the display of
:|> >:|religious symbols on public property? I'm kinda old fashioned and think that
:|> >:|sticking with the owners manual is much better than freelancing.
:|>
:|> Yes there is it is called separation of church and state.
:|> Public property isn't private, it is owned by the public.
:|> That would mean those portions of the public that are believers in some
:|> religion and those that aren't
:|
:|Again, where is this so called "separation of church and state"
:|restriction be found? Oh I know you will, like a good little
:|pre-programed liberal, point to the first amendment.
I suggest you do a serious study of the following two URLs.
Regardless of your own personal beliefs or ignorance, there most certainly
is a Constitutional principle of church state separation embodied in the
unamended constitution and further reinforced by the two religious clauses
of the BORs
This Principle has been recognized and acknowledged historically and/or
legally since the beginning, that is, since September since 1787
The following, using heavily primarily primary source documentation back up
with secondary source documentation proves this to be a fact.
You want to remain ignorant of these facts, be my guest. However, that is
all it will be, your ignorance.
Study Guide: Separation of Church and State - Indepth
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd0.htm
The Establishment Clause
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/estclause.htm
*****************************************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and the discussion group for the above site 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: I would welcome a good laugh at strict interpretation |
07 Jul 2005 09:37:55 AM |
|
|
On 7 Jul 2005 04:34:18 -0700, "The Bandit" <no-reply@idexer.com>
wrote:
buckeyeelo@nospam.net wrote:
"Clear to partly cloudy" <ctpc2456@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|Is there anything in the constitution that prohibits the display of
:|religious symbols on public property? I'm kinda old fashioned and think that
:|sticking with the owners manual is much better than freelancing.
Yes there is it is called separation of church and state.
Public property isn't private, it is owned by the public.
That would mean those portions of the public that are believers in some
religion and those that aren't
Again, where is this so called "separation of church and state"
restriction be found? Oh I know you will, like a good little
pre-programed liberal, point to the first amendment.
The separation comes from the USSC "Interpreting" law and their
reasonable view of what that part of the constitution "means".
That IS a function of the USSC that they are specifically named to do
What you're trying to argue is that YOUR interpretation of the
constitution should be law which is nonsense
The notion that only a "strict construction" of the constitution is a
modern invention. The reason is because conservatives lose power when
the constitution is interpreted to serve ALL americans---and that
pissed modern conservative off. If they can shape opinion to make
everyone believe that "what the founders thought" is what the
constitution :"should be", then the court will favor them in their
greed and drive for power.
There has never been a doctrine of "original intent" that ever passed
the smell test.
===================================================================
At first, the "Southern strategy" was a numerical success. Some of
the senior Republican senators at the impeachment trial today are
Southern Democrats wooed into the GOP -- Trent Lott of Mississippi,
Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, Jesse Helms of North Carolina and
Phil Gramm of Texas. All have used blatant appeals to intolerance
to score political points throughout their careers.
In the early 1990s, former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke won
the Louisiana GOP gubernatorial nomination and was beaten by Democrat
Edwin Edwards, who was implicated in some shady dealings.
The infamous Bayou bumper sticker that helped Edwards get elected--
"Vote for the Crook, Not the Kook"--speaks volumes on the public mood
toward the (impeachment) showdown today.
Edward Tafel---Log Cabin Republicans
.
|
|
|
| User: "-" |
|
| Title: Re: I would welcome a good laugh at strict interpretation |
07 Jul 2005 10:07:24 AM |
|
|
<Adenoid-Hinkel@LoonyRighwing.com> wrote in message
news:r6fqc15c83sf4r6dt60h8ditirsbilo2pp@4ax.com...
On 7 Jul 2005 04:34:18 -0700, "The Bandit" <no-reply@idexer.com>
wrote:
buckeyeelo@nospam.net wrote:
"Clear to partly cloudy" <ctpc2456@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|Is there anything in the constitution that prohibits the display of
:|religious symbols on public property? I'm kinda old fashioned and
think that
:|sticking with the owners manual is much better than freelancing.
Yes there is it is called separation of church and state.
Public property isn't private, it is owned by the public.
That would mean those portions of the public that are believers in
some
religion and those that aren't
Again, where is this so called "separation of church and state"
restriction be found? Oh I know you will, like a good little
pre-programed liberal, point to the first amendment.
The separation comes from the USSC "Interpreting" law and their
reasonable view of what that part of the constitution "means".
Which means that they can be wrong just like everybody else can.
Interpretation can go many directions. Why doesn't anyone have the guts to
stand up and admit that separation of church and state just simply is not in
the constitution? It is merely a twisting of language to suit a political
faction and that is why we are in the mess we are in now with personal
opinion on eminent domain, search and seizure, wiretap, endangered species,
medical marijuana and a myriad of other matters the supreme court has no
business in. They have taken this interstate commerce ***** to comical
levels.
--
-
.
|
|
|
| User: "-" |
|
| Title: Re: I would welcome a good laugh at strict interpretation |
08 Jul 2005 12:42:31 PM |
|
|
<Adenoid-Hinkel@LoonyRighwing.com> wrote in message
news:km8tc1tkql2e5ej5tvm06967lolj2uuv2b@4ax.com...
On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 15:07:24 GMT, "-" <__@hotmail.com> wrote:
Again, where is this so called "separation of church and state"
restriction be found? Oh I know you will, like a good little
pre-programed liberal, point to the first amendment.
The separation comes from the USSC "Interpreting" law and their
reasonable view of what that part of the constitution "means".
Which means that they can be wrong just like everybody else can.
Interpretation can go many directions. Why doesn't anyone have the guts
to
stand up and admit that separation of church and state just simply is not
in
the constitution? It is merely a twisting of language to suit a political
faction and that is why we are in the mess we are in now with personal
opinion on eminent domain, search and seizure, wiretap, endangered
species,
medical marijuana and a myriad of other matters the supreme court has no
business in. They have taken this interstate commerce ***** to comical
levels.
You still don't quite "get it"
How can the USSC be "wrong", when THEY are the ONLY ones given the job
of doing what they did?
It's not a real brain operation to "interpret" wording of "separation"
No, all it takes is a very vivid imagination.
--
-
.
|
|
| | | | | | |
