| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
09 Sep 2003 07:39:35 AM |
| Object: |
Re: What is "Establishment" |
(K C) wrote:
:|Jefferson, himself, as President spoke of his own faith, including in
:|the much touted seperation letter. Speaking of God is not the same as
:|establishing God.
Really?
In public speeches or writings for the public he spoke of his own faith?
Are you sure about that?
Can you give any examples?
Now, I will agree with you in this respect. In private letters to certain
people he spoke some of his own personal religious thoughts and to limited
degree his own personal religious beliefs, but this was not for public
consumption. (At least, not during his lifetime)
In fact he got highly irate when a private letter to a friend was made
public, by that friend against his wishes.
:|>b.) This country got along fine without this sayingn for over 150 years.
:|>It's a recent addition, and occurred as a response to the "atheist
:|>communist threat" which resulting in this country becoming a whole lot
:|>more theistic as a result.
:|
:|Here's some words of Washington as President..
:|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. 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.
Already answered this twice
I wonder why you picked 1795 instead of the 1789 proclamation?
Care to answer that?
:|
:|
:|>
:|You are right. They aren't stupid. They know who appointed them.
:|(political)
Ahhh, and many times they fool those who appointed them.
:|
:|Do polititicans have the freedom of religion or speech?
LOL, you are going to beat this non-issue forever aren't you?
:|And endorsement of atheism by censoring religion is endorsing
:|non-religion over religion, which the Supreme Court also said is
:|banned.
Cite?
:|It says respecting AN establishment of religion. Do you know what an
:|establishment is? Establishing is a verb and means to establish, but
:|that was not used in the text. An establishment is something already
:|established....get a dictionary.
Ho hum
***************************************
ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE:
The Establishment Clause as defined by the USSC in Everson v. Bd of Ed,
1947
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at
least this:
(1) neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.
(2) Neither can pass laws which aid one religion,
(2a) aid all religions,
(2b) or prefer one religion over another.
(3) Neither can force
(3a) nor influence a person to go to
(3b) or to remain away from church against his will
(3c) or force him to profess a belief
(3d) or disbelief in any religion.
(4) No person can be punished for entertaining [p*16]
(4a) or professing religious beliefs
(4b) or disbeliefs,
(4c) for church attendance
(4d) or non-attendance.
(5) No tax in any amount,
(5a) large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities
(5b) or institutions, whatever they may be called,
(5c) or whatever form they may adopt to teach
(5d) or practice religion.
(6) Neither a state
(6a) nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the
(6b) affairs of any religious organizations
(6c) or groups,
(6d) and vice versa.
************************************
EVEN IF YOU DO AWAY WITH #5 WHICH is what Rehnquist
has been working to accomplish for 30 years, you still all the other
elements which would be and are still good law.
************************************
The wording does not say:
Congress shall make no law making a state religion
Congress shall make no law establishing religion
Congress shall make no law establishing a state religion
Congress shall make no law establishing a national religion
What it does say is:
Congress shall make no law RESPECTING an establishment of religion, . . .
That is far broader.
***********************************************
" 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)
***********************************************
.. . . it is clear that the amendment does not say, "Congress shall make no
law establishing religion," but does say "no law respecting an
establishment of religion." It therefore cannot be construed as
authorizing Congress to support religious institutions. [or religion, any
kind of religion.]
Religious Liberty and the Secular State, The Constitutional Context. John
M. Smomley.Prometheus Books, (1987) p. 49
***********************************************
[EMPHASIS ADDED]
The still more important fact is that the type of article used in the
establishment clause makes no difference. The First Amendment does not say
that Congress shall not establish a religion or create an establishment of
religion. It says Congress shall make no law RESPECTING an establishment of
religion. Whether "respecting" connotes honoring or concerning, the clause
means that Congress shall make no law on that subject THE BAN IS NOT JUST
ON ESTABLISHMENTS OF RELIGION BUT ON LAWS RESPECTING
THEM, A FACT THAT ALLOWS A LAW TO FALL SHORT OF CREATING AN ESTABLISHMENT
YET STILL BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
(SOURCE: The Establishment Clause, Religion and the First Amendment,
Leonard W. Levy, Second Edition, Revised, The University of North Carolina
Press, (1994) p. 118
***********************************************
The following is written by an attorney, who also happens to have a Bs, &
Ms. in linguistics:
Some Thoughts on Religion and Law, Written by Susan Batte, Esq.
1. The Constitution did not provide any mechanism for the establishment
of religion or for the support of religion.
2. Religious tests were the primary mechanism for perpetuating an
established church within the political structure.
3. The Constitution specifically prohibits religious tests or oaths for
office.
THEREFORE, the Constitution created the concept of Separation of Church and
State by providing nothing in the constitution that supports the idea that
Government as Government is allowed to support any religion for any reason
and by specifically prohibiting the primary political mechanism for
supporting religion.
The 1st Amendment may only be interpreted, as being consistent with the
Constitution and the views expressed in the Constitution concerning
religion because:
1. The 1st Amendment was drafted after the Constitution was ratified and
was not designated as repealing any provision in the Constitution.
2. The 1st Amendment does not provide any mechanism for establishing
religion.
3. The 1st Amendment does provide the mechanism to allow an individual
as an individual and not as government to exercise the religion of his or
her choice.
THEREFORE, the 1st Amendment cannot be interpreted to mean that some
governmental entities may support religion in some ways (i.e., vouchers,
welfare programs, etc.).
Once the 1st Amendment prohibited Congress from establishing religion by
prohibiting it from making any law respecting an establishment of religion
- Congress was thereby precluded from passing any kind of appropriation
bill to fund any religious enterprise.
In order for the above to be true, the interpretation of "establishment"
would have to be broad, and in fact the broad interpretation of
"establishment" is supported. First, the O.E.D. (Oxford English Dictionary)
sets out a 1561 definition of establishment as "a means of establishing;
something that strengthens, supports or corroborates. Into the 1700s -
1800s, "establishment" could be defined as "the establishing by law (a
church, religion, form of worship.) As an example, the O.E.D. sets out the
following: 1886 Earl Selborne De Ch. Eng. I. iv. 77 All such relations of
the Church to the State as those which are summed up in the term
'Establishment'.
Second, a broad interpretation of"establishment" is consistent with the
indefinite article that proceeds it. "An"'establishment of religion' refers
to all or any religious establishment --- not to one or some
establishments. In the absence of definiteness, the inclusion of "of one
Christian sect over another" after "Congress shall make no law respecting
an establishment" would be necessary if, as Mr. Barton argues, the 1st
Amendment was all about stamping out competing rivalries between Christian
sects.
In addition, the operative word in the Establishment Clause is RESPECTING.
Respecting an establishment of religion. Any religious institution, be it a
20 member country church or a huge multimillion member international
religion, is an establishment of religion. The government is forbidden from
making any laws, positive or negative that would pertain to an
establishment of religion.
The narrow definition of establishment is that the 1st Amendment meant only
to prevent a "State Church" from being officially sanctioned by the
Government. (In this way, some people have tried to argue that supporting
religious schools doesn't establish anything.) However, such a narrow
reading of "Establishment" would need specific language added to the
Amendment to support it since a plain language reading of the Constitution
clearly shows no bias for (or against) Christianity as opposed to any other
religion or even irreligion. And neither does the 1st Amendment.
SOURCE: Excerpt from Some Thoughts on Religion and Law
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/bthot-lr.htm"
***********************************************
Along with that, let me add the following:
"Although Madison intiallly proposed "nor shall any national
religion be established," in the debate that followed he explained himself
by saying that his proposal meant that "Congress shall not establish a
religion." The word "a" has great significance for the nonpreferentialists.
They emphasizethe fact that in the debate Madison wished to proscribe "a
national religion," that is, a single or exclusive religion preferred over
allothers "and nothing else." Similarly, they stress that the term used in
the final version of the amendment is "an establishment of religion." The
use of the singular noun, "an establishment," supposedly has the effect of
narrowing the scope of the prohibition.7 Madison allegedly wanted only to
prohibit "discriminatory religious assistance" and "a national church." The
climax of this view follows: "At the same time, the phrase `an
establishment' seems to ensure the legality of nondiscriminatory religious
aid. Had the framers prohibited `the establishment of religion,' which
would have emphasized the generic word `religion,' there might the been
some reason for thinking they wanted to prohibit all official preferences
of religion over irreligion. But by choosing `an establishment' over `the
establishment,' they were showing that they wanted to prohibit only those
official activities that tended to promote the interests of one or another
particular sect."8 Preferring "religion over irreligion" is a red herring;
the question of such a preference was not an issue. The government
possessed no power to aid irreligion or religion.
What shall we say, however, about the interpretation based on the
use of the indefinite rather than the definite article? First, we are not
interpreting a verbatim record of the debate. The record we have derives
from unreliable newspaper reports. It is incomplete and does not purport to
be a literal transcription of the words of the speakers. Reporters took
notes that they later rephrased and expanded for publication. Any
interpretation of the debate that turns on single words or precise nuances
of phrasing must be suspect.9 And any interpretation that turns on the use
of the indefinite article rather than the definite article must be utterly
rejected, for the simple reason that the reporter who took shorthand notes
of the debates on the Bill of Rights omitted articles, both definite and
indefinite. He recorded the main outlines of speech and later reconstructed
those speeches from his memory. He omitted a great deal and sometimes
garbled what he included. Madison said, when sending a copy of the
reporter's work to Jefferson, it gave "some idea of the discussion," though
it showed "the strongest evidences of mutilation & perversion, and of the
illiteracy of the Editor." To another correspondent Madison wrote that the
reporter "sometimes filled up blanks in his notes from memory or
imagination" and that he also made drunken reports.10
Second, the nonpreferentialists stress the "a" in Madison's
recommended amendment without considering that it did not pass the House.
The amendment as adopted bans any law "respecting the establishment of
religion." It does not refer to "a religion" or "a national religion." The
reference is to religion in general. The nonpreferentialist argument is
founded on a discarded proposal rather than the constitutional text.
Nevertheless, Madison had an interpretation of "national religion," as we
shall see, that undoes the nonpreferentialist argument.
Third, "the" is not "generic"; it is specific. Contrary to Robert
Cord, Daniel Dreisbach, and the others, the employment of "the" instead of
"an" as the article preceding "establishment of religion" would not have
broadened the establishment clause. Fourth, "the" can be as singular as "a"
or "an." But those are quibbles.
A more important objection to the nonpreferentialist emphasis on
the definite article in the establishment clause derives from the attempt
to construe it literally or strictly. That which is inherently ambiguous
cannot be strictly construed. Worse still, strict construction of the First
Amendment, if ever taken seriously, would lead to the destruction of basic
rights. Strict construction often leads to narrow-mindedness. Consider the
exact language of the amendment: "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" The framers of the
amendment deliberately used different verbs in the freedom of religion and
freedom of the press clauses. That is a matter of considerably greater
semantic importance than the difference between "an" and "the" in the
establishment clause. If the framers meant what they said and said what
they meant, then Congress may abridge the free exercise of religion so long
as Congress does not prohibit it. The point is that contrary to Rehnquist
and company, the principles embodied in the First Amendment's clauses, not
some misunderstanding based upon a grammarian's niceties, command our
constitutional respect.
The still more important fact is that the type,of article used.in
the establishment clause made no difference. The First Amendment does not
say that Congress shall not establish a religion or create an establishment
of religion. It says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion. Whether "respecting" connotes honoring or concerning, the
clause means-that Congress shall make no law on that subject. The ban is
not just on establishments of religion but on laws respecting them, a fact
that allows a law to fall short of creating an establishment yet still be
unconstitutional.
7. Cord, Separation of Church and State, p. 5.
8. Malbin, Religion and Politics, p. 14.
9. See Appendix.
10. James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, May 9, 1789, in William T.
Hutchinson et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison, ser. in progress
(Chicago, 1 962-), I2:I42. See Marion Tinling, "Thomas Lloyd's Reports of
the First Federal Congress," William and Mary Quarterly, 3d set., 18 (Oct.
1961): 530, on the ornission of articles, and pp. 530-38 for contemporary
criticism of Lloyd's reporting. Tinling quotes a Madison letter of Jan. 7,
1832, describing the reporter as a "votary of the bottle" who made "too
free use of it" (pp. 5 37-38).
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The Establishment Clause, Religion and the First
Amendment, Leonard W. Levy, Second Edition, Revised, The University of
North Carolina Press, (1994) pp. 115-18
***********************************************
Please note the "noun endings."
http://www.uvsc.edu/owl/handouts/partsosp.html
***********************************************
From: Joni Rathbun <jrathbun@orednet.org>
Newsgroups:
alt.education,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.socie
ty.l iberalism
Subject: Re: Judge Refuses to Remove Ten Commandments Display
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 13:12:23 -0700
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003, Dana wrote:
Wrong, no where does the 1st Amendment state in any manner that there is a
seperation between church and state. The only thing the 1st states is that
the feds cannot impose a national religion.
(sigh)
Assuming you are looking at the FA as written in English, you could not be
more wrong. This should be understandable by anyone who has moved beyond
the concrete operational level of development as defined by Piaget.
.... shall make no laws respecting (concerning or regarding) AN
(indefinite article not definite article such as "the") establishment
(noun not verb for the English challenged among us) of religion (iow a
religious organization or code).
Change "an" to "the" and you can have it your way. But the
learned author chose "an" and demonstrated on many occasion that
"an" is exactly what he meant.
*****************************************
From: Beacher <me@privacy.net>
Subject: Re: What is "Establishment"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2003 09:26:51 -0400
On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 17:40:25 -0400, K C wrote:
--(-@
How does one establish a religion?
Is English not your native language or did you just sleep through high
school English?
The Constitution says "... an establishment of religion ..." The word
"an" is the indefinite article so what follows it is a noun. If they
were just worried about a national church they would have used a verb like
"establishing." They used a noun clause and not a verb. They knew their
grammar and used it with precision.
The word "thereof" in the free exercise clause refers back to "an
establishment of religion" so what Congress cannot make laws about is
precisely what you are free to exercise and not just a national religion.
If you are free to exercise any religion whatsoever, then Congress may
not make any law about any religion whatsoever. The government must
remain deaf, dumb, and blind when it comes to religion. The people are
free to exercise religion but the government is not.
The Fourteenth Amendment applies the first amendment to the states.
Otherwise states would be able to not only have official religions but to
prohibit the free exercise, free speech, and assembly of other religions
not approved by the state.
***********************************************
RELIGION CLAUSES 101
by Gene Garman
http://www.sunnetworks.net/~ggarman/rc101-1.html
***********************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "K C" |
|
| Title: Re: What is "Establishment" |
10 Sep 2003 02:32:11 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 08:39:35 -0400, wrote:
kands00@hotmail.com (K C) wrote:
:|Jefferson, himself, as President spoke of his own faith, including in
:|the much touted seperation letter. Speaking of God is not the same as
:|establishing God.
Really?
In public speeches or writings for the public he spoke of his own faith?
Are you sure about that?
Can you give any examples?
Here is the text of the end of the very letter the Seperation of
Church and State was taken from..
"I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessings of
the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you and your
religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.
Thomas Jefferson"
Jefferson, as President, spoke on faith.
:|Here's some words of Washington as President..
:|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. 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.
Already answered this twice
When..where? He was President and suggested that people take a
religious act. Was it unconstitutional?
:|And endorsement of atheism by censoring religion is endorsing
:|non-religion over religion, which the Supreme Court also said is
:|banned.
Cite?
EPPERSON v. ARKANSAS, 393 U.S. 97 (1968)
393 U.S. 97
:|It says respecting AN establishment of religion. Do you know what an
:|establishment is? Establishing is a verb and means to establish, but
:|that was not used in the text. An establishment is something already
:|established....get a dictionary.
Ho hum
***************************************
ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE:
The Establishment Clause as defined by the USSC in Everson v. Bd of Ed,
1947
1st Amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting AN establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the FREE EXERCISE thereof"
KC (author)
http://beingone.20m.com/beingone.html
http://beingone.20m.com/heaven-things.html (new book)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What is "Establishment" |
10 Sep 2003 03:35:39 PM |
|
|
(K C) wrote:
:|On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 08:39:35 -0400, wrote:
:|
:|> (K C) wrote:
:|>
:|>>:|Jefferson, himself, as President spoke of his own faith, including in
:|>>:|the much touted seperation letter. Speaking of God is not the same as
:|>>:|establishing God.
:|>
:|>Really?
:|>In public speeches or writings for the public he spoke of his own faith?
:|>Are you sure about that?
:|>
:|>Can you give any examples?
:|>
:|
:|Here is the text of the end of the very letter the Seperation of
:|Church and State was taken from..
:|
:|"I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessings of
:|the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you and your
:|religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.
:|Thomas Jefferson"
:|
:|Jefferson, as President, spoke on faith.
First of all. separation of church and state was not taken from any letter.
it existed as a constitutional principle BEFORE Jefferson ever wrote to the
Danbury Baptist Association.
It was embodied in the unamended constitution.
Jefferson was writing to his audience, the Danbury Baptist Association.
Do you think he would not speak to them in their language?
:|>>:|Here's some words of Washington as President..
:|>>:|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. 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.
:|>
:|>Already answered this twice
:|
:|When..where? He was President and suggested that people take a
:|religious act. Was it unconstitutional?
:|Would you say that George Washington was establishing religion in this
:|official action?
I already answered this, but I will answer it again. You want to know why I
will answer it again? I'll answer it again BECAUSE I CAN.
I will answer it again because I have the material, the resources, the
background, the knowledge and understanding to answer it.
:|"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.
****************************************
To see what he defaulted on and ran away from
[long version]
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=6ikjlvg28dn5hei3eq89k9a5nd2b56g74a%404ax.com
or
http://snurl.com/2ag2
[shorter version]
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=3nkjlv802aju2lgt6cprse7p5c1lh93tsm%404ax.com
or
http://snurl.com/2ag3
[third and shorter version yet ]
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=1pvjlvojvmafavc7qtuk47nhmt9r8lp2nn%404ax.com
or
http://snurl.com/2ag4
.
|
|
|
| User: "K C" |
|
| Title: Re: What is "Establishment" |
12 Sep 2003 11:06:34 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 16:35:39 -0400, wrote:
kands00@hotmail.com (K C) wrote:
:|On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 08:39:35 -0400, wrote:
:|
:|>kands00@hotmail.com (K C) wrote:
:|>
:|>>:|Jefferson, himself, as President spoke of his own faith, including in
:|>>:|the much touted seperation letter. Speaking of God is not the same as
:|>>:|establishing God.
:|>
:|>Really?
:|>In public speeches or writings for the public he spoke of his own faith?
:|>Are you sure about that?
:|>
:|>Can you give any examples?
:|>
:|
:|Here is the text of the end of the very letter the Seperation of
:|Church and State was taken from..
:|
:|"I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessings of
:|the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you and your
:|religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.
:|Thomas Jefferson"
:|
:|Jefferson, as President, spoke on faith.
First of all. separation of church and state was not taken from any letter.
it existed as a constitutional principle BEFORE Jefferson ever wrote to the
Danbury Baptist Association.
It was embodied in the unamended constitution.
Jefferson was writing to his audience, the Danbury Baptist Association.
Do you think he would not speak to them in their language?
:|>>:|Here's some words of Washington as President..
:|>>:|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. 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.
:|>
:|>Already answered this twice
:|
:|When..where? He was President and suggested that people take a
:|religious act. Was it unconstitutional?
:|Would you say that George Washington was establishing religion in this
:|official action?
I already answered this, but I will answer it again. You want to know why I
will answer it again? I'll answer it again BECAUSE I CAN.
I will answer it again because I have the material, the resources, the
background, the knowledge and understanding to answer it.
:|"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.
We can go through this again if you want...
Does that mean that the Government is free to make recommendations
about religion? So, then, if that is true, a teacher, congressman,
President (as seen above) and monument can make similar
recommendations..right?
So, then, what is your beef?
KC (author)
http://beingone.20m.com/beingone.html
http://beingone.20m.com/heaven-things.html (new book)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What is "Establishment" |
15 Sep 2003 03:23:52 PM |
|
|
(K C) wrote:
:|On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 16:35:39 -0400, wrote:
:|>Notice also it was a recommendation, not a law.
:|We can go through this again if you want...
:|
:|Does that mean that the Government is free to make recommendations
:|about religion? So, then, if that is true, a teacher, congressman,
:|President (as seen above) and monument can make similar
:|recommendations..right?
:|
:|So, then, what is your beef?
:|
:|KC (author), nut case, troll.
Is that your best shot, to play silly games?
FYI, you presented a historical fact. That historical fact has to be dealt
with in that time frame, not this time frame.
One of the worst things in the world is for someone to take their modern
mindset, their modern beliefs and thinking, their modern understanding and
project it on the people of other eras.
You want to dissect a historical event, do so in the context it existed
within.
Something you didn't do and are still not doing.
Since you love to ignore that which is posted and ask silly questions as a
way of setting up a smoke screen and distracting away from the fact you
were unable to deal with the historical data I posted. let me play your
game:
Why did Washington issue such?
Who asked him to?
How did they ask?
Did he follow what they wanted or did he foil them in the manner in which
he sidestepped the illegality of that they wanted?
When you get finished with that you can go back and deal with that which
you keep running away from. You can reply to the following anytime you feel
brave and smart.
http://snurl.com/2cpt
Some author you are, you knowledge of history is really lacking.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: What is "Establishment" |
12 Sep 2003 03:49:38 PM |
|
|
(K C) wrote:
Does that mean that the Government is free to make recommendations
about religion?
The government is not free to do so. The enforcement authority
against a president exceeding his authority is impeachment, and it
seems quite unlikely that Congress would consider this particular
event worthy of that sanction.
So, then, if that is true, a teacher, congressman,
President (as seen above) and monument can make similar
recommendations..right?
Of the job, they can do whatever they want. On the job, there are
restrictions. How well those restrictions are enforced against a
President does not say much about how well they may be enforced
against a teacher.
The monument would be perfectly fine on private property.
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
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: What is "Establishment" |
10 Sep 2003 05:29:31 PM |
|
|
(K C) wrote:
On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 08:39:35 -0400, wrote:
(K C) wrote:
:|Jefferson, himself, as President spoke of his own faith, including in
:|the much touted seperation letter. Speaking of God is not the same as
:|establishing God.
Really?
In public speeches or writings for the public he spoke of his own faith?
Are you sure about that?
Can you give any examples?
Here is the text of the end of the very letter the Seperation of
Church and State was taken from.
Letters are not public speeches and writings.
:|And endorsement of atheism by censoring religion is endorsing
:|non-religion over religion, which the Supreme Court also said is
:|banned.
Cite?
EPPERSON v. ARKANSAS, 393 U.S. 97 (1968)
393 U.S. 97
That decision did not say that "censoring religion" was "endorsement
of atheism".
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
.
|
|
|
| User: "K C" |
|
| Title: Re: What is "Establishment" |
12 Sep 2003 11:07:47 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 18:29:31 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
<lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
kands00@hotmail.com (K C) wrote:
On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 08:39:35 -0400, wrote:
kands00@hotmail.com (K C) wrote:
:|Jefferson, himself, as President spoke of his own faith, including in
:|the much touted seperation letter. Speaking of God is not the same as
:|establishing God.
Really?
In public speeches or writings for the public he spoke of his own faith?
Are you sure about that?
Can you give any examples?
Here is the text of the end of the very letter the Seperation of
Church and State was taken from.
Letters are not public speeches and writings.
:|And endorsement of atheism by censoring religion is endorsing
:|non-religion over religion, which the Supreme Court also said is
:|banned.
Cite?
EPPERSON v. ARKANSAS, 393 U.S. 97 (1968)
393 U.S. 97
That decision did not say that "censoring religion" was "endorsement
of atheism".
Read it. It said that the gov must be neutral between religion and
non-religion (atheism). Therefore, for the goverment to give
preference to non-religion is illegal by the Supreme Court.
KC (author)
http://beingone.20m.com/beingone.html
http://beingone.20m.com/heaven-things.html (new book)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What is "Establishment" |
15 Sep 2003 03:29:57 PM |
|
|
(K C) wrote:
:|Read it. It said that the gov must be neutral between religion and
:|non-religion (atheism). Therefore, for the goverment to give
:|preference to non-religion is illegal by the Supreme Court.
:|
:|KC (author) internet troll and nut case
(1) Do you have a clue how to read a court case and analyze it?
Do you have any idea what any of the following are and what significance to
a court case they may or may not have?
Dicta
Rule of law
Black letter law
Issue
Holding
Fact
Let me give you a tiny little hint, not everything you find in a court
opinion has any meaning, importance or significance.
(2) I fail to see where you presented any valid evidence that the
government is giving any preference to non-religion.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: What is "Establishment" |
12 Sep 2003 04:01:28 PM |
|
|
(K C) wrote:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 18:29:31 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
< > wrote:
EPPERSON v. ARKANSAS, 393 U.S. 97 (1968)
393 U.S. 97
That decision did not say that "censoring religion" was "endorsement
of atheism".
Read it. It said that the gov must be neutral between religion and
non-religion (atheism). Therefore, for the goverment to give
preference to non-religion is illegal by the Supreme Court.
You are free to try to take a case on that basis to the courts, but
don't be surprised when they laugh at you.
The rest of us will go by common sense understanding of what the
decision means, which is indicated among other things by how judges
have decided since 1968, but also by the text of the decision:
Government in our democracy, state and national, must be neutral in
matters of religious theory, doctrine, and practice. It may not be
hostile to any religion or to the advocacy of no-religion; and it may
not aid, foster, or promote one religion or religious theory against
another or even against the militant opposite. The First Amendment
mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and
between religion and nonreligion.12
As early as 1872, this Court said: "The law knows no heresy, and is
committed to the support of no dogma, the establishment of no sect."
Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679, 728. This has been the interpretation
of the great First Amendment which this Court has applied in the many
and subtle problems which the ferment of our national life has
presented for decision within the Amendment's broad command.
Needless to say, they have not taken your interpretation.
By the way, since you cited the case, live with one thing it says
therein:
This Court has said that the rights of free speech "while fundamental
in our democratic society, still do not mean that everyone with
opinions or beliefs to express may address a group at any public
place and at any time." Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, 554; Cox v.
Louisiana, 379 U.S. 559, 574.
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
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: What is "Establishment" |
12 Sep 2003 12:18:55 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 11:07:47 -0500, Clifford wrote:
EPPERSON v. ARKANSAS, 393 U.S. 97 (1968)
393 U.S. 97
This book is written for "Young Adults" so this paragraph /might/ not be too
difficult for you:
http://hallkidshistory.com/reference_nonfiction/589.shtml
The author, Jonathan L. Thorndike , February 17, 1999
Epperson case first Supreme Court ruling on Evolution
In 1965, Susan Epperson was a biology teacher at Central High School in
Little Rock, Arkansas. At that time, Arkansas was one of the few remaining
states with a law prohibiting the teaching Darwin's theory of evolution.
Passed in 1928 on the heels of the sensational Scopes "Monkey Trial," the
Arkansas law had never been enforced. Susan Epperson's official biology
textbook supplied by the school district contained a chapter on evolution. If
she taught that chapter, she violated the state law and possibly risked
losing her job. The Arkansas Education Association and attorney Eugene Warren
approached Epperson about challenging the outmoded law. Epperson went through
Chancery Court and Arkansas Supreme Court hearings before the US Supreme
Court agreed to take the case. This book traces the background of the
evolution controversy, Darwin's research, popular responses to the theory of
evolution, and the response of religious leaders and "Creation Scientists" in
the years before and after Epperson. Discussion questions, photos, glossary,
a bibliography, index, and web site list make this an excellent resource for
learning about the first Supreme Court ruling on Evolution.
That decision did not say that "censoring religion" was "endorsement
of atheism".
Read it. It said that the gov must be neutral between religion and
non-religion (atheism). Therefore, for the goverment to give
preference to non-religion is illegal by the Supreme Court.
That paricular case was whether the State of Arkansas could force the
teaching of "creationism".
The answer was/is: no, the state of Arkansas cannot force the teaching of
"creationism".
--------------------------------------------------------
<http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=393&invol=97>
Last para of the second section of Mr Justice Fortas' opinion for the court:
In any event, we do not rest our decision upon the asserted vagueness of the
statute. On either interpretation of its language, Arkansas' statute cannot
stand. It is of no moment whether the law is deemed to prohibit mention of
Darwin's theory, or to forbid any or all of the infinite varieties of
communication embraced within the term "teaching." Under either
interpretation, the law must be stricken because of its conflict with the
constitutional prohibition of state laws respecting an establishment of
religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The overriding fact is
that Arkansas' law selects from the body of knowledge a particular segment
which it proscribes for the sole reason that it is deemed to conflict with a
particular religious doctrine; that is, with a particular interpretation of
the Book of Genesis by a particular religious group.
--------------------------------------------------------
And from the last words of the decision:
[same reference as above)
In the present case, there can be no doubt that Arkansas has sought to
prevent its teachers from discussing the theory of evolution because it is
contrary to the belief of some that the Book of Genesis must be the exclusive
source of doctrine as to the origin of man. No suggestion has been made that
Arkansas' law may be justified by considerations of state policy other than
the religious views of some of its citizens. 15 It is clear [393 U.S. 97,
108] that fundamentalist sectarian conviction was and is the law's reason
for existence. 16 Its antecedent, Tennessee's "monkey law," candidly stated
its purpose: to make it unlawful "to teach any theory that denies the story
of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead
that man has descended from a [393 U.S. 97, 109] lower order of animals."
17 Perhaps the sensational publicity attendant upon the Scopes trial induced
Arkansas to adopt less explicit language. 18 It eliminated Tennessee's
reference to "the story of the Divine Creation of man" as taught in the
Bible, but there is no doubt that the motivation for the law was the same: to
suppress the teaching of a theory which, it was thought, "denied" the divine
creation of man.
Arkansas' law cannot be defended as an act of religious neutrality. Arkansas
did not seek to excise from the curricula of its schools and universities all
discussion of the origin of man. The law's effort was confined to an attempt
to blot out a particular theory because of its supposed conflict with the
Biblical account, literally read. Plainly, the law is contrary to the mandate
of the First, and in violation of the Fourteenth, Amendment to the
Constitution.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Arkansas is
Reversed.
--------------------------------------------------------
Epperson states that "evolution" is a scientific theory and is legal and that
"creationism" is a "religious teaching" and is illegal.
Let's re-read your words again:
Read it. It said that the gov must be neutral between religion and
non-religion (atheism). Therefore, for the goverment to give
preference to non-religion is illegal by the Supreme Court.
Now, notice the source of this:
[from the opening paras of the case]
"(c) The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion
and religion, and between religion and nonreligion"
So let's review the pertinent part:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . ."
So, getting back, finally, to suspended Judge Roy Moore: Strange Roy Moore
has caused the Protestant version of the Ten Commandments to be displayed in
the a public area of a governmental building in violation of the First
Amendment, Eppserson and his own state Constitution.
That he did this for purely political gain is, for me, a fact. I realize that
you - in your necessity to have others believe as you do - no matter what it
takes - apparently, consider Strange Roy Moore to be some kind of religious
"hero".
I would suggest to you, however, that you remember that Strange Roy Moore is
temporarily suspended from his duties on an /ethics/ charge.
My personal guess is that (1) Strange Roy Moore will be put back on the court
(it would be almost impossible for all nine people who will hear the ethics
charge to vote him off the bench)
and
(2) Something else will happen which will force Strange Roy Moore to resign -
in disgrace - from the bench. [This is based on the "Nixon Effect" which
states that - given enough unethical and immoral conduct - the person will be
"found out"].
Gray Shockley
--------------------------------------------------------
Author of the "Nixon Effect"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: What is "Establishment" |
12 Sep 2003 12:16:37 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, K C wrote:
EPPERSON v. ARKANSAS, 393 U.S. 97 (1968)
393 U.S. 97
That decision did not say that "censoring religion" was "endorsement
of atheism".
Read it. It said that the gov must be neutral between religion and
non-religion (atheism). Therefore, for the goverment to give
preference to non-religion is illegal by the Supreme Court.
Does the opinion say "non-religion (atheism)" or is that your
interpretation of what the court meant?
Religion is not the same thing as theism. There are religions with no
theistic aspect. Likewise, non-religion doesn't automatically imply
atheism. I believe the distinction is between the religious and the
secular--between the sacred and the profane, so to speak.
I think the neutrality which is mandated is that which says the government
may not say that religion is right/correct/improper or
wrong/incorrect/improper. >
KC (author)
Author? Author of a book about what one can do in heaven, a mythical
place about which KC has absolutely no experience. Therefore, he writes
of that which he knows not.
http://beingone.20m.com/heaven-things.html (new book)
Would you buy a guide book about traveling in the middle east written by
someone who had never been there?
.
|
|
|
| User: "K C" |
|
| Title: Re: What is "Establishment" |
12 Sep 2003 12:20:38 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 12:16:37 -0500, Carol Lee Smith
<human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, K C wrote:
EPPERSON v. ARKANSAS, 393 U.S. 97 (1968)
393 U.S. 97
That decision did not say that "censoring religion" was "endorsement
of atheism".
Read it. It said that the gov must be neutral between religion and
non-religion (atheism). Therefore, for the goverment to give
preference to non-religion is illegal by the Supreme Court.
Does the opinion say "non-religion (atheism)" or is that your
interpretation of what the court meant?
Religion is not the same thing as theism. There are religions with no
theistic aspect. Likewise, non-religion doesn't automatically imply
atheism. I believe the distinction is between the religious and the
secular--between the sacred and the profane, so to speak.
I think the neutrality which is mandated is that which says the government
may not say that religion is right/correct/improper or
wrong/incorrect/improper. >
The words are that it must be neutral between religion and religion
AND between religion and non-religion. Go read it.
KC (author)
Author? Author of a book about what one can do in heaven, a mythical
place about which KC has absolutely no experience. Therefore, he writes
of that which he knows not.
You seem to be an expert at doing that. However, my book is not
written from an expert point of view but a fun one, which you would
have known if you had looked at the sample on the site. However, your
lack of research before posting continues here.
http://beingone.20m.com/heaven-things.html (new book)
Would you buy a guide book about traveling in the middle east written by
someone who had never been there?
KC (author)
http://beingone.20m.com/beingone.html
http://beingone.20m.com/heaven-things.html (new book)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Thompson" |
|
| Title: Re: What is "Establishment" |
12 Sep 2003 02:03:47 PM |
|
|
"K C" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f61fff3.6102000@news.athenanews.com...
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 12:16:37 -0500, Carol Lee Smith
<human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, K C wrote:
EPPERSON v. ARKANSAS, 393 U.S. 97 (1968)
393 U.S. 97
That decision did not say that "censoring religion" was "endorsement
of atheism".
Read it. It said that the gov must be neutral between religion and
non-religion (atheism). Therefore, for the goverment to give
preference to non-religion is illegal by the Supreme Court.
Does the opinion say "non-religion (atheism)" or is that your
interpretation of what the court meant?
Religion is not the same thing as theism. There are religions with no
theistic aspect. Likewise, non-religion doesn't automatically imply
atheism. I believe the distinction is between the religious and the
secular--between the sacred and the profane, so to speak.
I think the neutrality which is mandated is that which says the
government
may not say that religion is right/correct/improper or
wrong/incorrect/improper. >
The words are that it must be neutral between religion and religion
AND between religion and non-religion. Go read it.
Evolution says nothing about religion. It merely states what science has
observed. That it conflicts with your religious beliefs is of no importance
and does not mean that it somehow becomes a belief system in the process.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What is "Establishment" |
15 Sep 2003 03:31:26 PM |
|
|
(K C) wrote:
:|. . . However, your
:|lack of research before posting continues here.
LOL now you are projecting yourself onto others LOL
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: What is "Establishment" |
12 Sep 2003 01:19:29 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, K C wrote:
Carol Lee Smith <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, K C wrote:
EPPERSON v. ARKANSAS, 393 U.S. 97 (1968)
393 U.S. 97
That decision did not say that "censoring religion" was "endorsement
of atheism".
Read it. It said that the gov must be neutral between religion and
non-religion (atheism). Therefore, for the goverment to give
preference to non-religion is illegal by the Supreme Court.
Does the opinion say "non-religion (atheism)" or is that your
interpretation of what the court meant?
Religion is not the same thing as theism. There are religions with no
theistic aspect. Likewise, non-religion doesn't automatically imply
atheism. I believe the distinction is between the religious and the
secular--between the sacred and the profane, so to speak.
I think the neutrality which is mandated is that which says the government
may not say that religion is right/correct/improper or
wrong/incorrect/improper. >
The words are that it must be neutral between religion and religion
AND between religion and non-religion. Go read it.
I do not dispute that it says "between religion and non-relgion."
I question "non-religion (atheism)." That was your choice of words, not
the choice of wording of the document in question.
KC (author)
Author? Author of a book about what one can do in heaven, a mythical
place about which KC has absolutely no experience. Therefore, he writes
of that which he knows not.
You seem to be an expert at doing that.
Do I write as an authority on a mythical place?
However, my book is not
written from an expert point of view but a fun one, which you would
have known if you had looked at the sample on the site. However, your
lack of research before posting continues here.
So what I wrote is correct. You write of that which you know not. But it
is written from a fun point of view? So it is a comedy?
Cool.
The whole idea of the existence of heaven is a comedy.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
