Religions > Atheism > Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the EstablishmentClause
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Christopher A. Lee" |
| Date: |
30 Aug 2003 10:05:32 PM |
| Object: |
Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the EstablishmentClause |
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 15:51:06 +0000 (UTC), (M.
Clark) wrote:
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
(M. Clark) writes:
...
A week ago I would have reluctantly agreed that "separation of church
and state" applies to Judge Moore's case. But I came across some
Jefferson writings that indicate that we have misunderstood what
Jefferson really thought about church/state separation in the first
place. Jefferson reflected on the 1st and 10th Amendment in these
writings and evidently recognized that the Constitution does indeed
endow the states with the power to address religious issues as opposed
to forbidding the federal government from having anything to do with
religious issues.
The 14the admendment applies the 1st to the states. In Jefferson's
time, states could have official religions, but not now.
Thank you for replying.
Have you read the 14th amendment? It says no such thing. Given the
10th amendment shows that the states can have power that the federal
government does not have, the 14th amendment is a good precaution to
make sure that the states don't use their unique power to abridge the
federal rights of their citizens.
The bottom line is that those who hate religious expressing are reading
things into the 14th amendment as much as they read "separation of
church and state" into the 1st amendment.
Which is of course, a Limbaugh-esque falsood because nobody "hates
religious expression" outside the paranoid imagination of evangelical
fundamentalists.
They lie about the reaction to being forced to participate in somebody
else's religious expression being "hatred for religious expression".
The First amendment, extended by the 10th and 14th amendments is
designed to stop thios sort of thing happening. The government is
supposed to be religiously neutral.
However part of the same evangelical fundamentalists' religion, is
imposing it on others. They imagine that being prevented from doing
this somehow abridges their own freedom of religion.
When all that is happening is that it preserves _everyone's_ freedom
of religion.
The constitution is all about the freedom of t he individual, not the
tyranny of the majority.
M. Clark
---
Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
| User: "Alan Wright" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the EstablishmentClause |
30 Aug 2003 11:02:04 PM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:dbl1lv4qra1vvhmi8hslfsjib8fal3pbit@4ax.com...
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 15:51:06 +0000 (UTC), (M.
Clark) wrote:
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
(M. Clark) writes:
...
A week ago I would have reluctantly agreed that "separation of church
and state" applies to Judge Moore's case. But I came across some
Jefferson writings that indicate that we have misunderstood what
Jefferson really thought about church/state separation in the first
place. Jefferson reflected on the 1st and 10th Amendment in these
writings and evidently recognized that the Constitution does indeed
endow the states with the power to address religious issues as opposed
to forbidding the federal government from having anything to do with
religious issues.
The 14the admendment applies the 1st to the states. In Jefferson's
time, states could have official religions, but not now.
Thank you for replying.
Have you read the 14th amendment? It says no such thing. Given the
10th amendment shows that the states can have power that the federal
government does not have, the 14th amendment is a good precaution to
make sure that the states don't use their unique power to abridge the
federal rights of their citizens.
The bottom line is that those who hate religious expressing are reading
things into the 14th amendment as much as they read "separation of
church and state" into the 1st amendment.
Which is of course, a Limbaugh-esque falsood because nobody "hates
religious expression" outside the paranoid imagination of evangelical
fundamentalists.
They lie about the reaction to being forced to participate in somebody
else's religious expression being "hatred for religious expression".
The First amendment, extended by the 10th and 14th amendments is
designed to stop thios sort of thing happening. The government is
supposed to be religiously neutral.
However part of the same evangelical fundamentalists' religion, is
imposing it on others. They imagine that being prevented from doing
this somehow abridges their own freedom of religion.
When all that is happening is that it preserves _everyone's_ freedom
of religion.
The constitution is all about the freedom of t he individual, not the
tyranny of the majority.
And so is democracy, and respect for other peoples religions.
Any time someone expects their religion to get a special place
or privilege (even if they appear to have a majority membership),
they should be prepared to be resisted, if not outright hated.
Alan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the EstablishmentClause |
31 Aug 2003 08:15:59 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 04:02:04 +0000, Alan Wright wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:dbl1lv4qra1vvhmi8hslfsjib8fal3pbit@4ax.com...
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 15:51:06 +0000 (UTC), (M.
Clark) wrote:
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
(M. Clark) writes: ...
A week ago I would have reluctantly agreed that "separation of
church and state" applies to Judge Moore's case. But I came across
some Jefferson writings that indicate that we have misunderstood
what Jefferson really thought about church/state separation in the
first place. Jefferson reflected on the 1st and 10th Amendment in
these writings and evidently recognized that the Constitution does
indeed endow the states with the power to address religious issues
as opposed to forbidding the federal government from having anything
to do with religious issues.
The 14the admendment applies the 1st to the states. In Jefferson's
time, states could have official religions, but not now.
Thank you for replying.
Have you read the 14th amendment? It says no such thing. Given the
10th amendment shows that the states can have power that the federal
government does not have, the 14th amendment is a good precaution to
make sure that the states don't use their unique power to abridge the
federal rights of their citizens.
The bottom line is that those who hate religious expressing are reading
things into the 14th amendment as much as they read "separation of
church and state" into the 1st amendment.
Which is of course, a Limbaugh-esque falsood because nobody "hates
religious expression" outside the paranoid imagination of evangelical
fundamentalists.
They lie about the reaction to being forced to participate in somebody
else's religious expression being "hatred for religious expression".
The First amendment, extended by the 10th and 14th amendments is
designed to stop thios sort of thing happening. The government is
supposed to be religiously neutral.
However part of the same evangelical fundamentalists' religion, is
imposing it on others. They imagine that being prevented from doing this
somehow abridges their own freedom of religion.
When all that is happening is that it preserves _everyone's_ freedom of
religion.
The constitution is all about the freedom of t he individual, not the
tyranny of the majority.
And so is democracy, and respect for other peoples religions.
Any time someone expects their religion to get a special place or
privilege (even if they appear to have a majority membership), they should
be prepared to be resisted, if not outright hated.
Particularly given that such is not "religious expression" but, rather,
assertion of *power...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the EstablishmentClause |
03 Sep 2003 02:48:17 PM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
:|On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 15:51:06 +0000 (UTC), (M.
:|Clark) wrote:
:|
:|>Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
:|>
:|>> (M. Clark) writes:
:|>> ...
:|>> >A week ago I would have reluctantly agreed that "separation of church
:|>> >and state" applies to Judge Moore's case. But I came across some
:|>> >Jefferson writings that indicate that we have misunderstood what
:|>> >Jefferson really thought about church/state separation in the first
:|>> >place. Jefferson reflected on the 1st and 10th Amendment in these
:|>> >writings and evidently recognized that the Constitution does indeed
:|>> >endow the states with the power to address religious issues as opposed
:|>> >to forbidding the federal government from having anything to do with
:|>> >religious issues.
:|>>
:|>> The 14the admendment applies the 1st to the states. In Jefferson's
:|>> time, states could have official religions, but not now.
:|>
:|>Thank you for replying.
:|>
:|>Have you read the 14th amendment? It says no such thing.
* Fourteenth Amendment
http://candst.tripod.com/14thamend.htm
:|Given the
:|>10th amendment shows that the states can have power that the federal
:|>government does not have,
The Tenth Amendment
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1qmoju0gcaa4m2gkbmb5lnrprfp5ktqk95%404ax.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
the 14th amendment is a good precaution to
:|>make sure that the states don't use their unique power to abridge the
:|>federal rights of their citizens.
:|>
:|>The bottom line is that those who hate religious expressing are reading
:|>things into the 14th amendment as much as they read "separation of
:|>church and state" into the 1st amendment.
:|
:|Which is of course, a Limbaugh-esque falsood because nobody "hates
:|religious expression" outside the paranoid imagination of evangelical
:|fundamentalists.
:|
:|They lie about the reaction to being forced to participate in somebody
:|else's religious expression being "hatred for religious expression".
:|
:|The First amendment, extended by the 10th and 14th amendments is
:|designed to stop thios sort of thing happening. The government is
:|supposed to be religiously neutral.
:|
:|However part of the same evangelical fundamentalists' religion, is
:|imposing it on others. They imagine that being prevented from doing
:|this somehow abridges their own freedom of religion.
:|
:|When all that is happening is that it preserves _everyone's_ freedom
:|of religion.
:|
:|The constitution is all about the freedom of t he individual, not the
:|tyranny of the majority.
:|
:|>M. Clark
:|>>
:|>> ---
:|>> Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
