"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
:|The Navy is unwittingly bowing down to anti-religious expression
:|political correctness by attacking free speech in the name of the
:|non-existant constitutional principal of absolute church-state
:|separation:
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. )
*********************************************************************
:|
:|"One of the amendments to the Constitution... expressly declares that
:|'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
:|prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of
:|speech, or of the press,' thereby guarding in the same sentence and
:|under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the
:|press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary
:|which covers the others." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky
:|Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:382
What legal standing did the Kentucky Resolutions have?
Hint: none!!!!!!!!
:|Again, not only did Jefferson, Mr. "wall of separation" himself,
:|regularly attend worship services held in the hall of the House of
:|Representatives at the Nation's Capitol, he also authorized the US
:|Marine Band to provide music for worship services held in other
:|government buildings as well.
Let's set the record straight on the matter of Jefferson attending church,
church services held in Congress, Jefferson's conversion to Christianity,
etc.
Your shorter link is: http://makeashorterlink.com/?B2F86115C
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/7eb540462c6d54b0?hl=en&
***************************************************************************************
I wonder if fred has noticed that I made his plugging for Keyes more honest
and accurate for the past week or more each time i foudn his plugging
mantra?
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
:|Separationists and tyrant judges don't want people to know that the
:|10th Amendment actually reserved the power to address religion for the
:|states since the 1st Amendment explicitly prohibited this power to the
:|federal government.
:| The [ Radical Religious Right Theocratic propagandistic ]
:|essay referenced by the link below explains
:|the 1st and 10th Amendments with respect to religion:
:|http://www.renewamerica.us/readings/keyes_essay.htm
********************************************************
Meet another theocrat Meet Alan L. Keyes
Home site
http://www.renewamerica.us/archives/index.htm
Religious Liberty as defined by him
http://www.renewamerica.us/archives/religious_liberty.htm
Alan Keyes / Alan Dershowitz
Does Organized Religion Hold Answers to the Problems of the 21st Century?
Debate, September 27, 2000
http://www.renewamerica.us/archives/speeches/00_09_27debate.htm
Alan Keyes
On the establishment of religion: What the Constitution really says
August 26, 2003
http://www.renewamerica.us/archives/columns/03_08_26wnd.htm
Positions on Particular Issues
http://www.ourfounder.com/haque/keyes.htm
*******************************************************************
From: Bob LeChevalier <>
Newsgroups:
alt.religion.christian,alt.politics.gw-bush,alt.politics.republican,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.ed
ucation
Subject: Re: So-called theocratic states vs section 1 of 14th Amendment
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 05:46:26 -0400
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Whether "Jefferson said" so or not, the interpretaton by the USSC (the
ONLY entity allowed to do so) has established that doctrine
generations ago.
But the Court "established that doctrine" based on Jeffersons words.
It would have established that "doctrine" no matter who said it.
Incredible :^(
What's incredible? Other than your continuing to pontificate in
ignorance.
Have you READ the Everson decision that you think yourself qualified
to counter? The court DID NOT define the Establishment Clause based
on Jefferson's words. You could remove the quote from Jefferson from
the text and it wouldn't change their reasoning a whit, since it was
not part of their reasoning. They tacked the quote on the END, as a
short summary
Offering "essays", "writings", or other non-relevant, extraneous crap
won't alter the fact.
Again, the Court used Jefferson's writings to justify their doctrine
anyway.
The notion that a "wall" exists would exist independent of Jefferson.
If sponge bob said it even.
You're in a fantasy world.
The "wall" is a metaphor for the formal legal definition that the
court decided in Everson. They did not need Jefferson's quote.
Adding it made good rhetoric, as indeed many speakers and writers add
relevant quotes from great people to spice up their writing.
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
*****************************************************************
Kindly explain to the readers that overall importance of Jefferson's letter
in reply to the Danbury Baptists Association in defining the Establishment
Clause in light of the following information:
From:
Newsgroups:
alt.education,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.usa.constit
ution,alt.politics.usa.republican,misc.education
Subject: Re: (Mis)Interpretation of First Amendment
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 15:07:00 -0500
PART V
ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE:, EVERSON & FOOTNOTES TO EVERSON
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.education/msg/a554494414aff8a5?hl=en&lr=
******************************************************************
From:
Newsgroups:
alt.religion.christian,alt.politics.gw-bush,alt.politics.republican,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.ed
ucation
Subject: Re: So-called theocratic states vs section 1 of 14th Amendment
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 12:06:23 -0600
On 17 Aug 2005 19:01:27 -0700, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
The 10th Amendment reserved for the states the power to address
religion since the 1st Amendment of the federal BOR prohibits this
power only to the federal government
Christ sake fred
"Essays" aren't law.
Citizens are afforded equal protection of law.
States cannot address constitutional questions that affect ALL
citizens and "interpretations" other than the USSC are bogus.
Government (state, local, federal) cannot set up, endorse, promote,
pander to, wink at, or in any way favor religious stupidity as policy.
Whether "Jefferson said" so or not, the interpretaton by the USSC (the
ONLY entity allowed to do so) has established that doctrine
generations ago.
Offering "essays", "writings", or other non-relevant, extraneous crap
won't alter the fact.
***********************************************************
The Nineteenth Century Supreme Court and “Republican Protestantism”
http://www.facstaff.bucknell.edu/mazur/courses/reli310/Story.html
**************************************************************
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote in message
The Tenth Amendment was altered so that it really isn't as clear as many
people seem to think
(1) THE TENTH AMENDMENT
(2) THE BILL OF RIGHTS & THE TENTH AMENDMENT,
(3) THERE HAVE BEEN ATTEMPTS TO UNDERMINE WHAT THE FOUNDERS PASSED BY
ADDING THE WORD EXPRESSLY TO THE TENTH AMENDMENT: THE BATTLE OVER THE TENTH
AMENDMENT: OPENING A SECOND FRONT
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.religion.christianity/msg/45713c229fe82b90?hl=en&
************************************************************
Amend. To improve. To change for the better by
removing defects or faults. To change, correct,
revise. See Amendment.
Amendment. To change or modify for the better.
To alter by modification, deletion, or addition.
SOURCE: Black's Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition Centennial Edition
(1891-1991) West Publishing (1991) p 52
********************************************************
I said it was modified, not revoked. The 1st reads, "Congress shall
make no law ...". The 14th reads "No State shall make ... any law ..."
The 14th modifies the 1st to effectively read, "Congress and the
States shall make no law ..."
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 16:55:12 -0500
From: Josh Rosenbluth to fred
*****************************************************
The Williamsburg Charter, 1988
A Reaffirmation of the First Amendment
http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/const/Willburg.html
********************************************************************
Fourteenth Amendment, Selective Incorporation
http://candst.tripod.com/14thamend.htm
***************************************************************
cloim <cloim@propylaea.tor.org> wrote:
:|
:|As he says the word "congress" does appear to state that the 1st amendment
:|does not apply to the states. And I see no reason to believe that is an
:|inaccurate reading.
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote in message
There was a reason for that. Congress was singled out because it was the
most powerful however, the writings of Madison makes it clear that it
wasn't just congress that was meant. The government, as a whole, was
meant
cloim <cloim@propylaea.tor.org> wrote:
:|However, as others have already pointed out, the 14th amendment changed
:|things...
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote in message
That is true which totally makes fred's daily spamming trolling posts
totally irrelevant as well as articles written by those pointing what was,
once irrelevant.
Slavery was permitted by the Constitution but few cite that today to say we
should return to that.
if we returned to what was, as these people advocate, this is what we could
have to give up:
The following list shows the provisions in the Bill of Rights that have
been incorporated via the 14th Amendment:
* (5) 1897 -- Right to Just Compensation
* (1) 1925 -- Freedom of Speech [dictum]
1927 [holding]
* (1) 1931 -- Freedom of the Press
* (6) 1932 -- Assistance of Counsel in capital case
* (1) 1937 -- Freedom of Assembly
* (1) 1940 -- Free Exercise of Religion
* (1) 1947 -- Ban on Religious Establishment
* (4) 1948 -- Right to public trial
* (4) 1949 -- Right against unreasonable Search and Seizure
* (1) 1958 -- Freedom of Association (1958)
* (4) 1961 -- Exclusionary Rule
* (8) 1962 -- Ban on Cruel and Unusual Punishment
* (6) 1963 -- Assistance of counsel in all felony cases
* (5) 1964 -- Right against Self-incrimination
* (6) 1965 -- Right to confront adverse witnesses
* (6) 1966 -- Right to impartial trial
* (6) 1967 -- Right to Compulsory Process to obtain witnesses
* (6) 1967 -- Right to Speedy Trial
* (6) 1968 -- Right to Jury in nonpetty criminal cases
* (5) 1969 -- Right against Double Jeopardy
* (6) 1972 -- Right to counsel imprisonable misdemeanor cases
* (6) 1972 -- Right to notice of accusation
* (6) 1979 -- Right to a unanimous verdict if only six jurors
Source of Information: The Evolving Constitution, How the Supreme Court
Has Ruled on Issues from Abortion to Zoning. By Jethro K. Lieberman, Random
House (1992) pp. 258, 260.
Actually what the theocrats like fred, Alan Keyes most of the others would
really like to do is just make the Establishment Clause go away and maybe
in a number of instances the free exercise clause.
However, what they overlook is that most state constitutions have the same
provisions and sometimes even stricter.
**************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
