Re: Rally to support First Amendment



 Religions > Atheism > Re: Rally to support First Amendment

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 1 of 1

1

 
Topic: Religions > Atheism
User: ""
Date: 03 Oct 2003 08:41:32 AM
Object: Re: Rally to support First Amendment
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:

:|
:|"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
:|news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1031002000120.32712A-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
:|> LEND YOUR NAME AND ENDORSE THE
:|> SUNDAY, OCTOBER 5 DEMO IN WASHINGTON, D.C.!
:|>
:|> This Sunday, October 5, 2003, Atheists, Freethinkers, Secular
:|> Humanists and other nonbelievers will rally at our nation's capitol
:|> to support the First Amendment separation of church and state.
:|
:|More accurately you are seeking separation of church from state. This is
:|different than the separation of church and state.

And your evidence beyond
Jeff - I don't have a clue what I am talking about, but I am good at
pretending and making it up as I go along so don't confuse me with the
facts, my mind is made up. I stereotype and prejudge. It has always worked
well in the past, why change now - Strickland
Jeffy -- maybe, I heard, but didn't bother to do any independent research,
I like to believe things I want to hear I don't like knowing the facts if
they aren't going to agree with what I want to believe and I especially
love passing along on the interest as facts things I haven't a clue about
their accuracy -- Strickland is at it again.
is?
Separation of church means separation of church (religion) from/and state
(govt) as well as separation of state (govt) from/and church (religion)
It means separation, dippy. it means divorce between the two, ending of
unions and or alliances between the two. Parting between the two.
Here these people sum it up quite nicely:
Study Guide: Separation of Church and State - Indepth
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd0.htm
.

User: "Dore"

Title: Re: Rally to support First Amendment 05 Oct 2003 04:28:53 PM
I've seen the phrase "Separation of Church and State" thrown around in your
newspaper. If this phrase is going to continue to be used in your paper, don
't you think the readers deserve an honest, unbiased history of the phrase?
If you ask most people where the phrase "Separation of Church and State"
comes from, they will answer "It's in the Constitution" or "I don't know."
Thank you for your editorial on the Constitution and Bill of Rights in which
you showed your readers the truth that it is not in the Constitution (nor
Bill of Rights). I would like to give the answer to the people who do not
know.
In 1801, the Danbury Baptist association of Danbury, CT. heard a rumor that
the Congregationalist Denomination was going to be made the national
denomination of the United States of America (to the exclusion of all other
denominations).
They wrote a letter of protest to President Thomas Jefferson. On Jan 1,
1802, in the President's letter of reply, he used the phrase
"The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation of church and state."
In the context of his letter he meant separation of "denomination" and
state. He was explaining the First Amendment accurately.
The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
According to the founding fathers and their discussion of the First
Amendment in the United States Congressional Records dated June 7-September
25, 1789 (the time they framed the First Amendment), they wanted to avoid
what happened in Great Britain.
They did not want the federal government of the United States to establish a
single national denomination in America to the exclusion of all other
denominations. (This was the one and only intent of the First Amendment!)
By the word "religion" they clearly meant (according to their records)
"denomination," i.e. Christian denomination. This also is evident by the
dozen or so versions they discussed before choosing the final versions they
discussed before choosing the final version as it is now worded. The
original version proposed in the Senate in Sept. 3, 1789 was:
"Congress shall not make any law establishing any religious denomination."
The second version: "Congress shall make no law establishing any particular
denomination."
The third: "Congress shall make no law establishing any particular
denomination in preference to others."
The Supreme Court of 1962 took Thomas Jefferson's phrase "church [his
meaning "denomination"] and state" and redefined the word "church" to mean
"any religious activity," thus "separation of any religious activity and
state!"
Other courts have followed suit ignoring the historical evidence and
following court's twisted opinion of a phrase taken out of context instead
of upholding the Constitution and its original intent.
This is the story of how the phrase "separation of church and state" has
wrongly been used as the defining metaphor of the First Amendment.
Fisher Ames was the founding father who offered the final wording for the
First Amendment. Certainly he would understand the intent of the first
Amendment. In an article in a national magazine in 1801, Fisher Ames
expressed concern that the Bible must always be the number one text book in
American schools!
Thomas Jefferson was head of the school board of Washington, D.C. The Bible
and a hymnal were textbooks! 94% of all the documents that went into the
founding era (1760-1805) were based on the Bible, and of that, 34% of the
contents were direct quotations from the Bible! Less censorship of our
religious heritage would seem in order!
--
Dore
http://dorewilliamson.com
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:q3vqnv8qe983l21p5i91cjm9ovr323qama@4ax.com...

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

:|
:|"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
:|news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1031002000120.32712A-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
:|> LEND YOUR NAME AND ENDORSE THE
:|> SUNDAY, OCTOBER 5 DEMO IN WASHINGTON, D.C.!
:|>
:|> This Sunday, October 5, 2003, Atheists, Freethinkers, Secular
:|> Humanists and other nonbelievers will rally at our nation's capitol
:|> to support the First Amendment separation of church and state.
:|
:|More accurately you are seeking separation of church from state. This

is

:|different than the separation of church and state.



And your evidence beyond
Jeff - I don't have a clue what I am talking about, but I am good at
pretending and making it up as I go along so don't confuse me with the
facts, my mind is made up. I stereotype and prejudge. It has always worked
well in the past, why change now - Strickland

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

research,

I like to believe things I want to hear I don't like knowing the facts if
they aren't going to agree with what I want to believe and I especially
love passing along on the interest as facts things I haven't a clue about
their accuracy -- Strickland is at it again.
is?

Separation of church means separation of church (religion) from/and state
(govt) as well as separation of state (govt) from/and church (religion)
It means separation, dippy. it means divorce between the two, ending of
unions and or alliances between the two. Parting between the two.

Here these people sum it up quite nicely:

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

.
User: ""

Title: Re: Rally to support First Amendment 06 Oct 2003 08:09:54 AM
"Dore" <spiritfire@frontiernet.net> wrote:
[Grrrrrrrrrrr, another top poster. Well I did reverse that in my reply.
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:q3vqnv8qe983l21p5i91cjm9ovr323qama@4ax.com...

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

:|
:|"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
:|news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1031002000120.32712A-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
:|> LEND YOUR NAME AND ENDORSE THE
:|> SUNDAY, OCTOBER 5 DEMO IN WASHINGTON, D.C.!
:|>
:|> This Sunday, October 5, 2003, Atheists, Freethinkers, Secular
:|> Humanists and other nonbelievers will rally at our nation's capitol
:|> to support the First Amendment separation of church and state.
:|
:|More accurately you are seeking separation of church from state. This

is

:|different than the separation of church and state.



And your evidence beyond?
Jeff - I don't have a clue what I am talking about, but I am good at
pretending and making it up as I go along so don't confuse me with the
facts, my mind is made up. I stereotype and prejudge. It has always worked
well in the past, why change now - Strickland
Jeffy -- maybe, I heard, but didn't bother to do any independent
research, I like to believe things I want to hear I don't like knowing the facts if
they aren't going to agree with what I want to believe and I especially
love passing along on the interest as facts things I haven't a clue about
their accuracy -- Strickland is at it again.
is?
Separation of church means separation of church (religion) from/and state
(govt) as well as separation of state (govt) from/and church (religion)
It means separation, dippy. it means divorce between the two, ending of
unions and or alliances between the two. Parting between the two.
Here these people sum it up quite nicely:
Study Guide: Separation of Church and State - Indepth
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd0.htm

:|I've seen the phrase "Separation of Church and State" thrown around in your
:|newspaper.

I don't have a newspaper. I did co-publish a newspaper back in the early
90s but haven't published a newspaper probably for 8 years or so now.

:|If this phrase is going to continue to be used in your paper, don
:|'t you think the readers deserve an honest, unbiased history of the phrase?

Oh, I do provide an honest chronological history of not only the term
"separation of church and state," but of the history of church state
separation.
As far as biased goes. Can you cite me any accommodationist,
non-preferential, Radical Religious Right, ultra Conservative or radical
libertarian that provide links to the opposition's viewpoints on their
site and provide articles written by people who opposed the position they
are championing?
The position we are championing is that of strict separation. Strict
separation as advocated by men like James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, The
rev John Leland, the Rev Issac Backus, Ethan Allen, and a host of other
founders, contemporaries of the founders and those who came later.
Yet you will find on our site links to web sites that strongly oppose that
position. Going to those sites you will find even more links to other sites
that strongly oppose our position. You will also find on out site articles
written by men who strongly opposed strict separation in the last years of
the 1700, and at various times throughout the 1800s.
Rebuttal to Jefferson's Bill for Religious Freedom (1786)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/statuterebut.htm
The Sunday Mail Argument (1810-1830) (combination of PRO and CON arguments
here)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/sundays3.htm
*The Jasper Adams Saga (1833)
o Introduction
o Jasper Adams Sermon: Relation of Christianity to Civil
Government, First Edition
http://candst.tripod.com/jasp1.htm
o Jasper Adams Sermon, First Edition
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/jasp1.htm
o The letters to and from Jasper Adams.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/jaspltrs.htm
o Rebuttal to Jasper Adams Sermon, Immunity of Religion
http://candst.tripod.com/jasprebut.htm
o Jasper Adams Sermon: Second Edition
http://candst.tripod.com/jasp2.htm
The NRA (National Reform Association) and the Christian Amendment (1861-65)
Some arguments and points by the other side)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/nra.htm
The "Christian Nation" Decision and Rebuttal (1892)
http://candst.tripod.com/holytrin.htm
Soon to be added to our web site are some of the most famous of the
pamphlets that were written in to try to convince a nation not to vote
for Thomas Jefferson for President base on his religious views. [At least
in the case of one such pamphlet doesn't appear anywhere else online]
I also offer the following:
Web site slanted, biased, etc.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V13C326C1
http://makeashorterlink.com/?H5AD126C1
A Simple Test
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/simptest.htm
and this and invite you to refute any of the folloiwng if you can:
Study Guide: Separation of Church and State - Indepth
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd0.htm

:|If you ask most people where the phrase "Separation of Church and State"
:|comes from, they will answer "It's in the Constitution" or "I don't know."

Irrelevant,
A phrase are words that try and describe something. The phrase is not what
is essential, what is essential is what the phrase is acknowledging and
trying to describe.
The Concept, the legal Principle of church state separation was embodied in
the unamended constitution and further reinforced with the religious
clauses of the BORs
If you ask most people a lot of things you will get, "I don't know," or an
incorrect answer.

:|Thank you for your editorial on the Constitution and Bill of Rights in which
:|you showed your readers the truth that it is not in the Constitution (nor
:|Bill of Rights).

Don't try to put words in my mouth or our web site.
I will repeat again:
A phrase are words that try and describe something. The phrase is not what
is essential, what is essential is what the phrase is acknowledging and
trying to describe.
The Concept, the legal Principle of church state separation was embodied in
the unamended constitution and further reinforced with the religious
clauses of the BORs

:| I would like to give the answer to the people who do not
:|know.
:|In 1801, the Danbury Baptist association of Danbury, CT. heard a rumor that
:|the Congregationalist Denomination was going to be made the national
:|denomination of the United States of America (to the exclusion of all other
:|denominations).

Establishing a "national religion, national denomination, etc." would have
been next to impossible.
" In recent discussions of religious freedom and Church-State separation in
the United States attention has been so much centered constitutionally on
the Bill of Rights that the importance of this Provision in the original
Constitution as a bulwark of Church-State separation has been largely
overlooked. As a matter of fact it was and is important in preventing
religious tests for Federal office--a provision later extended to all the
states. It went far in thwarting any State Church in the United States; for
it would be almost impossible to establish such a Church, since no Church
has more than a fifth of the population. Congress as constituted with men
and women from all the denominations could never unite in selecting any one
body for this privilege. This has been so evident from the time of the
founding of the government that it is one reason why the First Amendment
must be interpreted more broadly than merely as preventing the state
establishment of religion which had already been made almost impossible."
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: CHURCH AND STATE IN THE UNITED STATES, VOLUME I,
Anton Phelps Stokes, D.D., LL.D, Harper & Brothers Publishers (1950) page
527)
James Madison And National Religion
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/madnational.htm

:|They wrote a letter of protest to President Thomas Jefferson. On Jan 1,
:|1802, in the President's letter of reply, he used the phrase
:|
:|"The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation of church and state."
:|
:|
:|In the context of his letter he meant separation of "denomination" and
:|state. He was explaining the First Amendment accurately.
:|The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an
:|establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
:|
:|
:|According to the founding fathers and their discussion of the First
:|Amendment in the United States Congressional Records dated June 7-September
:|25, 1789 (the time they framed the First Amendment), they wanted to avoid
:|what happened in Great Britain.
:|
:|
:|They did not want the federal government of the United States to establish a
:|single national denomination in America to the exclusion of all other
:|denominations. (This was the one and only intent of the First Amendment!)
:|
:|
:|By the word "religion" they clearly meant (according to their records)
:|"denomination," i.e. Christian denomination. This also is evident by the
:|dozen or so versions they discussed before choosing the final versions they
:|discussed before choosing the final version as it is now worded. The
:|original version proposed in the Senate in Sept. 3, 1789 was:
:|
:|"Congress shall not make any law establishing any religious denomination."
:|
:|The second version: "Congress shall make no law establishing any particular
:|denomination."
:|
:|The third: "Congress shall make no law establishing any particular
:|denomination in preference to others."
:|
:|
:|The Supreme Court of 1962 took Thomas Jefferson's phrase "church [his
:|meaning "denomination"] and state" and redefined the word "church" to mean
:|"any religious activity," thus "separation of any religious activity and
:|state!"
:|
:|Other courts have followed suit ignoring the historical evidence and
:|following court's twisted opinion of a phrase taken out of context instead
:|of upholding the Constitution and its original intent.
:|
:|This is the story of how the phrase "separation of church and state" has
:|wrongly been used as the defining metaphor of the First Amendment.

Two comments:
(1)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If you're going to
claim something outlandish you're going to need some pretty extraordinary,
irrefutable proof to back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's
the extraordinary proof for their extraordinary claims? If one is not
responding with extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the claim is not worth
considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ as Homer@nospam said]
Why is asking for "proof" considered truculence? Do you consider it
truculence for a judge to ask for evidence in a trial. Would you rather
that
people just testified that they believed in the guilt of the suspect?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2)
The Barton Chronicles
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/bartchro.htm

:|Fisher Ames was the founding father who offered the final wording for the
:|First Amendment. Certainly he would understand the intent of the first
:|Amendment. In an article in a national magazine in 1801, Fisher Ames
:|expressed concern that the Bible must always be the number one text book in
:|American schools!

TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY FALSE
Six men, three from the House three from the Senate, a joint house/Senate
committee, wrote the final wording of the religious clauses of the 3rd
Amendment. (December 1791 the 3rd Amendment became the 1st Amendment)
Fisher Ames was not a member of that joint House/Senate Committee.

:|
:|Thomas Jefferson was head of the school board of Washington, D.C. The Bible
:|and a hymnal were textbooks! 94% of all the documents that went into the
:|founding era (1760-1805) were based on the Bible, and of that, 34% of the
:|contents were direct quotations from the Bible! Less censorship of our
:|religious heritage would seem in order!

FALSE, TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY FALSE.
Thomas Jefferson supported Bible reading in school; this is proven
by his service as the first president of the Washington, D.C. public
schools, which used the Bible and Watt's Hymns as textbooks for reading.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/arg6.htm
Another Jefferson Quote Debunked
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/jefschl1.htm
Jefferson, Religion, and the Public Schools.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/jeffschl.htm
**************************************
It is obvious based on the above you didn't read the following
Study Guide: Separation of Church and State - Indepth
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd0.htm
You may disagree with the information found in the URLs and links within
that overall article (however, that would be hard to do in most cases since
most of the material there is actually primary source historical
documentation and not commentary), but you are going to have to do far
better, by providing valid documented historical data, then you little
discourse above.
Every single point you tried to make is answered and then some in the
following
Study Guide: Separation of Church and State - Indepth
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd0.htm
While I don't expect you to actually do it, I would recommend that you go
back and actually read and study that material as well as the material to
be found in all the internal links in that article.
.

User: "Gray Shockley"

Title: Re: Rally to support First Amendment 06 Oct 2003 12:25:01 AM
On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 16:28:53 -0500, Dore wrote
(in message <p20gb.279$s37.267@news01.roc.ny>):


Thomas Jefferson was head of the school board of Washington, D.C. The Bible
and a hymnal were textbooks! 94% of all the documents that went into the
founding era (1760-1805) were based on the Bible, and of that, 34% of the
contents were direct quotations from the Bible! Less censorship of our
religious heritage would seem in order!

You sorta pretty much kinda forgot to include anything that would make your
statement anything other than something you made up while you were having a
really bad day.
Gray Shockley
----------------------------------------
And 72% of me believes that.
.
User: "Al Klein"

Title: Re: Rally to support First Amendment 06 Oct 2003 06:51:49 PM
On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 0:25:01 -0500, Gray Shockley
<gray-11@cybercoffee.org> posted in alt.atheism:

On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 16:28:53 -0500, Dore wrote
(in message <p20gb.279$s37.267@news01.roc.ny>):

Thomas Jefferson was head of the school board of Washington, D.C. The Bible
and a hymnal were textbooks! 94% of all the documents that went into the
founding era (1760-1805) were based on the Bible, and of that, 34% of the
contents were direct quotations from the Bible! Less censorship of our
religious heritage would seem in order!

You sorta pretty much kinda forgot to include anything that would make your
statement anything other than something you made up while you were having a
really bad day.

Dore doesn't have to support her arguments. She's god. Didn't you
know that? What she makes up *becomes* fact.
--
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your
Christ."
- Mohandas Gandhi
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
User: "Gray Shockley"

Title: Re: Rally to support First Amendment 06 Oct 2003 08:54:56 PM
On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 18:51:49 -0500, Al Klein wrote
(in message <buv3ovganov0tuaav9dc05jmmrhcjjhp7i@Pern.rk>):

On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 0:25:01 -0500, Gray Shockley
<gray-11@cybercoffee.org> posted in alt.atheism:

On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 16:28:53 -0500, Dore wrote
(in message <p20gb.279$s37.267@news01.roc.ny>):


Thomas Jefferson was head of the school board of Washington, D.C. The
Bible
and a hymnal were textbooks! 94% of all the documents that went into the
founding era (1760-1805) were based on the Bible, and of that, 34% of the
contents were direct quotations from the Bible! Less censorship of our
religious heritage would seem in order!


You sorta pretty much kinda forgot to include anything that would make
your
statement anything other than something you made up while you were having
a
really bad day.


Dore doesn't have to support her arguments. She's god. Didn't you
know that? What she makes up *becomes* fact.

But only 3.2% of the time. She appears to be wrong 82% of the time and not
know what she's talking about 97.1% of the time.
Of course, the Bible has been quoted by 81% of the convicts on death row to
explain why "god made me doit" and by 46.7$ of the convicted armed robbers
who liked a good, bloody story with lots of sex and killing.
Then there are the 65.2% who can never get straight what's in the Bible and
what's in Shakespeare as well as the 41% who can never get straight what's in
the Bible and what was written by Francis Bacon.
And I can prove every one of these "facts"
You just read it on the Internet, so it's true.
So there!
Gray Shockley
--------------------------------------------------------
William Shakespeare did not write the plays
or the sonnets. It was another person with
the same name.
.
User: "Al Klein"

Title: Re: Rally to support First Amendment 07 Oct 2003 08:08:54 PM
On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 20:54:56 -0500, Gray Shockley
<gray-11@cybercoffee.org> posted in alt.atheism:

And I can prove every one of these "facts"
You just read it on the Internet, so it's true.
So there!

Oh, I thought you just made the numbers up, like 92.4% of the numbers
on the internet.
--
"I can't activate two neurons simultaneously, and I vote"
- The theistic majority
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
User: "Gray Shockley"

Title: Re: Rally to support First Amendment 07 Oct 2003 08:34:07 PM
On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 20:08:54 -0500, Al Klein wrote
(in message <4ro6ovku378kjksf5gkvqpkqv9ap0thqeb@Pern.rk>):

On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 20:54:56 -0500, Gray Shockley
<gray-11@cybercoffee.org> posted in alt.atheism:

And I can prove every one of these "facts"


You just read it on the Internet, so it's true.


So there!


Oh, I thought you just made the numbers up, like 92.4% of the numbers
on the internet.

Not only that but four out of five dentists questioned said, "Get the [fill
in the blank] out of my office".
Gray Shockley
-------------------------------------------------
Pain is evitable but suffering is optional.
.







  Page 1 of 1

1

 


Related Articles
 

NEWER

pg.3585     pg.2749     pg.2106     pg.1612     pg.1232     pg.940     pg.716     pg.544     pg.412     pg.311     pg.234     pg.175     pg.130     pg.96     pg.70     pg.50     pg.35     pg.24     pg.16     pg.10     pg.6     pg.3     pg.1

OLDER