kands00@hotmail.com (K C) wrote:

:|Why do you keep spamming my posts to single groups to many groups to
:|push your own agenda where I am not? It seems like cowardice to me.

It's real simple.
You have a right to post anywhere you want to post.
You grasp that?
I, in turn have the same right to reply in any manner I elect to reply.
That includes where I wish to send my replies to. I personally like to see
broader discussions, more input, potentially better discussions.
The topic is church state. The NGs fit the topic. There is atheism &
Christian religion, Con law, education, liberal and conservative NGs, all
very balanced.

Net etiquette varies from 4 to 7 topic related NGs being acceptable.

You don't like it, too bad.

Now about the actual topic:

kands00@hotmail.com (K C) wrote:

:|Would you say that George Washington was establishing religion in this
:|official action?

:|"It is in an especial manner our duty as a people, with devout
:|reverence and affectionate gratitude, to acknowledge our many and
:|great obligations to Almighty God, and to implore Him to continue and
:|confirm the blessings we experienced.
:|Deeply penetrated with this sentiment, I, George Washington, President
:|of the United States, do recommend to all religious societies and
:|denominations, and to all persons whomsoever within the United States,
:|to set apart and observe Thursday, the 19th day of February next, as a
:|day of public thanksgiving and prayer, and on that day to meet
:|together and render sincere and hearty thanks to the great ruler of
:|nations for the manifold and signal mercies which distinguish our lot
:|as a nation" - National Thanksgiving Proclamation, Jan 1, 1795
:|
:|Consider that this President, Washington, was also the chairman of the
:|Constitutional Convention.

And?

:|Now, consider if He considered the 1st
:|amendment as a restriction on government officials expressing or
:|condoning religion. Read the text above to find out.
:|
:|KC (author) & internet troll and nut case

Duh, the 3rd Amendment, later to become the 1st Amendment had nothing to do
with the Constitutional Convention.

Notice also it was a recommendation, not a law.

Notice also what two people who were involved in framing the 3rd = 1st
Amendment had to say on the very same topic:

*********************************************
(1) Representative Thomas Tucker on Church and State
Thomas Tucker of South Carolina made a revealing statement about his
beliefs concerning church/state separation toward the end of the first
session of the first Congress to meet under the Constitution. Mr. Tucker's
comments were occasioned by a proposal from Representative Boudinot of New
Jersey to ask the President to proclaim a day of thanksgiving in honor of
Congress' completion of its first session. The following is taken from the
Annals of Congress, Vol I, 1789, pp. 914-15 (entry for Friday, September
25, 1789).


MR. TUCKER, a Representative from the State of South Carolina, thought the
House had no business to interfere in a matter which did not concern them.
Why should the president direct the people to do what, perhaps, they have
no mind to do? They may not be inclined to return thanks for a constitution
until they have experienced that it promotes their safety and happiness. We
do not yet know but they may have reason to be dissatisfied with the
effects it has already produced; but whether this be so or not, it is a
business with which Congress have nothing to do, it is a religious matter,
and, as such is proscribed to us [emphasis ours]. If a day of thanksgiving
must take place, let it be done by the authority of the several states;
they know best what reason their constituents have to be with the
establishment of this Constitution.

(Source of information: "Excerpt from The Debates and Proceedings in the
Congress of the United States" Annals of Congress) September 25, 1789, Vol.
I, Joseph Gales, published by Gales and Seaton, Washington, 1834, pp
914-15)

At the time of Tucker's comments, the amendments to the Constitution, with
its religious clauses, had been passed and were ready to be sent to the
states for debate and ratification or rejection. The religion clauses would
not become a part of the laws of this nation for another two years. Even
though he lost the vote that day, Tucker was reminding his fellow
Representatives that they were prohibited by the unamended Constitution
from involvement with matters concerning religion. Tucker's acknowledgment
of the principle of separation of church and state in September 1789 in the
First Federal Congress is a part of the official record of that Congress.

Representative Thomas Tucker on Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/basic2a.htm

*********************************************
(2) Excerpts from Madison's Detached Memoranda.

Religious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings & fasts
are shoots from the same root with the legislative acts reviewed.

Altho' recommendations only, they imply a religious agency, making no part
of the trust delegated to political rulers.

The objections to them are:

1. that Govts ought not to interpose in relation to those subject to
their authority but in cases where they can do it with effect. An advisory
Govt is a contradiction in terms.
2. The members of a Govt as such can in no sense, be regarded as
possessing an advisory trust from their Constituents in their religious
capacities. They cannot form an ecclesiastical Assembly, Convocation,
Council, or Synod, and as such issue decrees or injunctions addressed to
the faith or the Consciences of the people. In their individual capacities,
as distinct from their official station, they might unite in
recommendations of any sort whatever, in the same manner as any other
individuals might do. But then their recommendations ought to express the
true character from which they emanate.
3. They seem to imply and certainly nourish the erronious idea of a
national religion. The idea just as it related to the Jewish nation under a
theocracy, having been improperly adopted by so many nations which have
embraced Xnity, is too apt to lurk in the bosoms even of Americans, who in
general are aware of the distinction between religious & political
societies. The idea also of a union of all to form one nation under one
Govt in acts of devotion to the God of all is an imposing idea. But reason
and the principles of the Xn religion require that all the individuals
composing a nation even of the same precise creed & wished to unite in a
universal act of religion at the same time, the union ought to be effected
thro' the intervention of their religious not of their political
representatives. In a nation composed of various sects, some alienated
widely from others, and where no agreement could take place thro' the
former, the interposition of the latter is doubly wrong:
4. The tendency of the practice, to narrow the recommendation to the
standard of the predominant sect. The Ist proclamation of Genl Washington
dated Jany 1. 1795 recommending a day of thanksgiving, embraced all who
believed in a supreme ruler of the Universe." That of Mr. Adams called for
a Xn worship. Many private letters reproached the Proclamations issued by
J. M. for using general terms, used in that of Presit W--n; and some of
them for not inserting particulars according with the faith of certain Xn
sects. The practice if not strictly guarded naturally terminates in a
conformity to the creed of the majority and a single sect, if amounting to
a majority.
5. The last & not the least objection is the liability of the practice
to a subserviency to political views; to the scandal of religion, as well
as the increase of party animosities. Candid or incautious politicians will
not always disown such views. In truth it is difficult to frame such a
religious Proclamation generally suggested by a political State of things,
without referring to them in terms having some bearing on party questions.
The Proclamation of Pres: W. which was issued just after the suppression of
the Insurrection in Penna and at a time when the public mind was divided on
several topics, was so construed by many. Of this the Secretary of State
himself, E. Randolph seems to have had an anticipation.

The original draught of that Instrument filed in the Dept. of State in the
hand writing of Mr Hamilton the Secretary of the Treasury. It appears that
several slight alterations only had been made at the suggestion of the
Secretary of State; and in a marginal note in his hand, it is remarked that
"In short this proclamation ought to savour as much as possible of
religion, & not too much of having a political object." In a subjoined note
in the hand of Mr. Hamilton, this remark is answered by the counter-remark
that "A proclamation of a Government which is a national act, naturally
embraces objects which are political" so naturally, is the idea of policy
associated with religion, whatever be the mode or the occasion, when a
function of the latter is assumed by those in power.

During the administration of Mr Jefferson no religious proclamation was
issued. It being understood that his successor was disinclined to such
interpositions of the Executive and by some supposed moreover that they
might originate with more propriety with the Legislative Body, a resolution
was passed requesting him to issue a proclamation.

It was thought not proper to refuse a compliance altogether; but a form &
language were employed, which were meant to deaden as much as possible any
claim of political right to enjoin religious observances by resting these
expressly on the voluntary compliance of individuals, and even by limiting
the recommendation to such as wished simultaneous as well as voluntary
performance of a religious act on the occasion.


Excerpts from Madison's Detached Memoranda.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/detach.htm
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. They offer glimpses of
Madison's opinions on several topics and personalities. What follows is
that part of the "Memoranda" devoted to the subject of religious liberty.
The entire document was published by Elizabeth Fleet in the William and
Mary Quarterly of October 1946.
****************************************

kands00@hotmail.com (K C) wrote:

Why do you keep spamming my posts to single groups to many groups

Because his response is on topic in those groups.

And your posting to single groups is often deceptive, since you make
the same post to multiple groups in separate postings. A significant
number of your posts to alt.education were posted identically in a
separate posting to misc.education.

to push your own agenda where I am not?

Of course you are pushing your own agenda.

It seems like cowardice to me.

Why would it be cowardice to post to a larger audience of people who
might respond?

Clearly the Internet community does not bow to your wishes. Live with
it, or leave.

lojbab
--
lojbab