|
|
| User: "Maverick" |
|
| Title: Re: The marriage of church and state. |
30 Apr 2005 04:10:04 PM |
|
|
"Nog" <nognog@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:z8SdnfSe59C2Me7fRVn-uA@adelphia.com...
<buckeye-ELO@nosapm.net> wrote in message
news:4r4471t570hi0pl9atm3pi46diuru321f0@4ax.com...
maaxx@xrs.net (Maaxx) wrote:
:|Which constitution? Not the US Constitution. The federal government
:|has no authority to regulate education.
Ever hear of the Land Ordinance of 1785 and or the Northwest Ordinance?
If not you should look them up.
Yu would be surprised.
If a eunuch marries a toad will that ***** up marriage?
No teenagers allowed on my computer. PLONK
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: The marriage of church and state. |
30 Apr 2005 04:05:23 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 11:02:55 -0500, Nog wrote
<buckeye-ELO@nosapm.net> wrote in message
news:4r4471t570hi0pl9atm3pi46diuru321f0@4ax.com...
maaxx@xrs.net (Maaxx) wrote:
Which constitution? Not the US Constitution. The federal government
has no authority to regulate education.
Ever hear of the Land Ordinance of 1785 and or the Northwest Ordinance?
If not you should look them up.
Yu would be surprised.
If a eunuch marries a toad will that ***** up marriage?
Only among fundamentalist Christian
(but not "Christ-like") heterosexuals.
manog
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Info Junkie" |
|
| Title: Re: The marriage of church and state. |
30 Apr 2005 12:24:04 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 12:02:55 -0400, "Nog" <nognog@adelphia.net> wrote:
<buckeye-ELO@nosapm.net> wrote in message
news:4r4471t570hi0pl9atm3pi46diuru321f0@4ax.com...
maaxx@xrs.net (Maaxx) wrote:
:|Which constitution? Not the US Constitution. The federal government
:|has no authority to regulate education.
Ever hear of the Land Ordinance of 1785 and or the Northwest Ordinance?
If not you should look them up.
Yu would be surprised.
If a eunuch marries a toad will that ***** up marriage?
Now now "Nog". According to a few, they prefer to spout the same fallacy over
and over in Usenet, and attempt to bolster their position through use flawed
*evidence*, even when such evidence has been proven invalid multiple times.
When challenged and it becomes obvious their evidence (and their logic) is
flawed, they (the few) switch to other fallacies and/or invoke ad hominem in an
effort to besmirch the challenger, rather than prove the challenger(s) in error
based on the facts.
That usage of a document that has been proven to be an invalid (i.e.,
unconstitutional) in its legal application wrt US States with a ratified
constitution doesn't change the facts...just a refusal (of the few) to accept
it. Yet they (the few) continue to spout their fallacy through repetition...as
if somehow by some miracle, the gullible (usually newbies) may accept their
fallacy as fact. Eventually (and thankfully) these (few) reveal their true
character as it becomes known to all in Usenet, and their credibility sinks to
being a poster that is untrustworthy, while the many in Usenet may relegate them
(the few) to "troll" status.
"No one is going to be convinced by the rote repetition of an opinion, therefore
you should always back up your opinions with evidence and logic. Posting an
unsupported assertion is a sure way to induce flames. Doing it numerous times
will completely destroy your credibility.
(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-welcome.html)
So after my diatribe, to them (the few) if a "eunuch marries a toad", it may be
"OK", based on their fallacious view of the world, but not necessarily based on
any facts nor evidence.
"...every person must be his own watchman for truth... -Justice Jackson
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The marriage of church and state. |
03 May 2005 02:08:47 PM |
|
|
(Info Junkie) wrote:
***************************************************************
.. . . 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)
***********************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[Below is a discussion group for the above site]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
:|On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 12:02:55 -0400, "Nog" <nognog@adelphia.net> wrote:
:|
:|><buckeye-ELO@nosapm.net> wrote in message
:|>news:4r4471t570hi0pl9atm3pi46diuru321f0@4ax.com...
:|>> (Maaxx) wrote:
:|>>
:|>>>:|Which constitution? Not the US Constitution. The federal government
:|>>>:|has no authority to regulate education.
:|>>
:|>> Ever hear of the Land Ordinance of 1785 and or the Northwest Ordinance?
:|>> If not you should look them up.
:|>> Yu would be surprised.
:|>>
:|>If a eunuch marries a toad will that ***** up marriage?
:|
:|Now now "Nog". According to a few, they prefer to spout the same fallacy over
:|and over in Usenet, and attempt to bolster their position through use flawed
:|*evidence*, even when such evidence has been proven invalid multiple times.
:|When challenged and it becomes obvious their evidence (and their logic) is
:|flawed, they (the few) switch to other fallacies and/or invoke ad hominem in an
:|effort to besmirch the challenger, rather than prove the challenger(s) in error
:|based on the facts.
:|
:|That usage of a document that has been proven to be an invalid (i.e.,
:|unconstitutional) in its legal application wrt US States with a ratified
:|constitution doesn't change the facts...just a refusal (of the few) to accept
:|it. Yet they (the few) continue to spout their fallacy through repetition...as
:|if somehow by some miracle, the gullible (usually newbies) may accept their
:|fallacy as fact. Eventually (and thankfully) these (few) reveal their true
:|character as it becomes known to all in Usenet, and their credibility sinks to
:|being a poster that is untrustworthy, while the many in Usenet may relegate them
:|(the few) to "troll" status.
:|
:|"No one is going to be convinced by the rote repetition of an opinion, therefore
:|you should always back up your opinions with evidence and logic. Posting an
:|unsupported assertion is a sure way to induce flames. Doing it numerous times
:|will completely destroy your credibility.
:|(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-welcome.html)
:|
:|So after my diatribe, to them (the few) if a "eunuch marries a toad", it may be
:|"OK", based on their fallacious view of the world, but not necessarily based on
:|any facts nor evidence.
buckeye-...@nospam.net Oct 4 2004, 9:29 pm
Newsgroups: misc.education
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 21:29:04 -0400
Local: Mon,Oct 4 2004 9:29 pm
Subject: Re: Public education via the *Ordinances* (was Re: DUBYA DOES IT
AGAIN)
(Info Junkie) wrote:
:|Yet, what did those ratifiers (state delegates) of the Constitution actually say
:|when they discussed the possibility of this new centralized entity, i.e. the
:|federal government, to using taxpayer monies to fund public education in all
:|states?
:|
:|By ratifying such a document (US Constitution) they certainly knew well that
:|they were to be giving up powers previously (and jealously) retained by the
:|states, and such ratification of the Consitution would be giving up such powers
:|to a previously untested centralized entity that combined, would have the power
:|to control issues well beyond the powers of a single state.
:|
:|What issues were considered in the debates on this issue? Surely, public
:|education as you've previously asserted, was important to many and you even
:|named Jefferson among others. Just as surely then, with such notable figures
:|having made their beliefs known, privately and publically, public education
:|would have been an issue important enough to be debated by those state delegates
:|charged with determining which issues would be deemed for the national scale,
:|and how such a delegation of state powers would effect their individual states
:|directly and/or indirectly, i.e., which powers should be retained verus those
:|delegated to the federal government.
:|
:|Using the debates themselves as primary sources, mixed with common sense,
:|reality and the words from those such as both Madison and Jefferson (see below).
:|state delegates were familiar with the beliefs of such noted figures as
:|Jefferson, yet apparently did not believe either Jefferson nor others considered
:|public education a national, but a state issue, nor did they concern themselves
:|with the *Ordinances* that effected Territories, as States did not fall under
:|the rules imposed upon Territories. Apparently, the state delegates believed
:|educational concerns were an issue to be delt with by the powers reserved to the
:|states alone, and concerns wrt education within Territories having already been
:|addressed by said *Ordinances*.
:|
:|To elucidate further, what was the focus of these debates by the state delegates
:|
:|regarding the delegation of state powers to the federal government to use
:|taxpayer monies to fund public education in all states? (portions previously
:|provided you)
:|
The above is nice but this gives the historical facts and the historical
and present day reality:
CHAPTER THREE. THE ROLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
http://64.78.63.75/samples/05EDU0404AlexanderAmerPublicSchoolLaw6ch3.pdf
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N16433179
American Public School Law, Sixth Edition, Kern Alexander, University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, M. David Alexander, Virginia Tech University
*******************************************************************
ALONG WITH THE FOLLOWING:
:|Mr jalison
:|(alias buckeye), where said *Ordinances*, written by the "United States in
:|Congress assembled", has no legal jurisdiction upon land once its legal status
:|has been changed from a Territory to one of a State.
And you are either ignorant, have no reading comprehension problem or are a
liar. The following says you are full of ***** or a liar
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=qulll0pbm265h...
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W35321E69
The above doesn't go away nor does it change.
Your refusal and inability to address any or all of it directly is noted
time after time after time.
:|>THE LAND ORDINANCES
You will be hard pressed to find any valid respected histories of American
education that do not include the role the Land Ordinances of 1785 and
1787 played in that, but hey, continue to lie to yourself.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1407440902d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=U...
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q57312E69
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1759621590d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=U...
http://makeashorterlink.com/?E18326E69
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1759621590d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=U...
http://makeashorterlink.com/?U29342E69
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1759621590d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=U...
http://makeashorterlink.com/?E2A322E69
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1759621590d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=U...
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Y2B324E69
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=qulll0pbm265h...
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W35321E69
The government (federal, state and local) has been , directly or indirectly
or sometimes both, involved in education since before the Constitution
was framed in this country.
That is a documented fact, a documented fact that I have shown from a
variety of sources over and over again over the past several years.
This particular poster [ (Info Junkie) ] is another one of
those unique nut cases you find in Usenet that is best illustrated by
comparing him to the fella who stands in the town square at midnight
shouting its high noon.
The Govt has been involved in Education, is involved in education and will
remain involved in education. Since courts and not (Info
Junkie) determines what is constitutional and what is not and no court has
ever even hinted at govt involvement in education is not constitutional all
the screaming, knashing of teeth renting of clothes, bawling, etc done by
(Info Junkie) and others like him are completely
irrelevant.
The Land Ordinances of 1785 and 1789 are the laws of this nation that
established that involvement and there isn't a damn thing that
(Info Junkie) is going to be able to provide that is going
to prove otherwise.
**************************************************************
THE LAND ORDINANCES
Even before the adoption of the Constitution, the Continental Congress
enacted the Land Ordinances of 1785 and 1787, which provided impetus for
creation of educational systems in all the states joining the Union.
SOURCE: American Public School Law, Third Edition,Kern Alexander. M. David
Alexander. West Publishing Company, (1992) p. 49
****************************************************
The Northwest Ordinance set out the requirements necessary for
territorial areas to become states. Provisions for education, habeas
corpus, due process, and religious freedom were all to be provided for in
the compact, which was required by the central government as a condition
for a territory to become a state.
The legislatures of the new states were thus required, in
accordance with the Ordinance of 1785, to oversee the sixteenth-section
lands, or to account for the funds if sold; the Northwest Ordinance of 1787
required that each state have an education provision in its basic law.
Later, when Ohio became a state in 1802, the problem arose as to
whether states could tax federal property within their boundaries. A
compromise was reached that provided that states would receive "5 percent"
of the sale of lands, if in turn federal property would be exempt from
state taxation. These "5-percent" lands, along with income from salt lands
and swamplands, added to the revenues available or the public schools.
Later, as a result of Jackson's decentralization efforts, the Surplus
Rev!nue Deposit Act of 1836 distributed $28 million n federal funds back to
state governments, nuch of which was devoted to school purposes.
AMERICAN PUBLIC SCHOOL LAW. SIXTH EDITION, KERN ALEXANDER, M. DAVID
ALEXANDER, WEST PUBLISHING, (2004) p. 64-5
*************************************************************
Nathan Dane and the Ordinance of 1787
http://www.primaryresearch.org/PRTHB/Dane/Murray/murray.htm
[excerpt]
.. . . The ordinance says that the revenue generated from the sale of a
portion of each township in the state would go to fund public education.
This was the first instance of federal aid for education in American
history.
*******************************************************************
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=qulll0pbm265h...
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W35321E69
.
|
|
|
|
|
