"Andrealphus" <OHNOLETSGO@NARNIA.WHOCARES_2> wrote in message
news:vyZEd.4519$pZ4.2453@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...

Patrick Lee Humphrey <patrick@io.com> wrote:

"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:

"L. Michael Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:gcWdnQeq-P9TgHncRVn-jg@golden.net...

Johnny wrote:

Sebree is a liar.

Please point out exactly where he lies in his previous post!

Why? Are you too lazy to look into it yourself?

You obviously can't support any assertion you've made. Mark dusted
you without breaking a sweat.

Johnny doesn't have the intelligence to carry a real debate, I killfiled
him long ago as worthless.

Nah. That is definitely not the case.

"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:las8u01s1q94g59lj8fb45fm14gg9tli6j@4ax.com...

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:56:14 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
said in alt.atheism:

Johnny wrote:

Sebree is a liar.

Please point out exactly where he lies in his previous post!

Why?
Are you too lazy to look into it yourself?

IOW,

You suck.

in addition to not knowing how to post properly

A lie.

(what you say
goes ABOVE the tear line), you can't point out any specific lie.

A false assertion.

That
would make you a liar.

Another lie.

"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:las8u01s1q94g59lj8fb45fm14gg9tli6j@4ax.com...

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:56:14 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
said in alt.atheism:

Johnny wrote:

Sebree is a liar.

Please point out exactly where he lies in his previous post!

Why?
Are you too lazy to look into it yourself?

IOW,

You suck.

in addition to not knowing how to post properly

A lie.

(what you say
goes ABOVE the tear line), you can't point out any specific lie.

A false assertion.

cactus <baldemar.malnariz@ubadlands.edu> wrote in
news:rFKEd.4025$pZ4.255@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:

Gactimus wrote:

cactus <baldemar.malnariz@ubadlands.edu> wrote in
news:AMIEd.3981$Ii4.919@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:

Osprey wrote:

"cactus" <baldemar.malnariz@ubadlands.edu> wrote in message
news:4eDEd.3671$pZ4.911@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...

Osprey wrote:

"ouroboros rex" <c-bee1@itg.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:cruo4v$af6$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...

"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:quednUc_C_zsQ3_cRVn-og@rcn.net...

After reading about Newdow's new anti-religious lawsuit plans I
was inspired (not religiously so) with this question...

Does the establishment clause actually imply a separation of
church and state or is the left yet again trying to trample the
Constitution?"

Answer: The "separation of church and state," as it's interpreted
today, is
not only wrong, it stands the First Amendment, which was designed
to protect religious liberties, on its head. The First Amendment
reads,

"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; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So, how does a judge putting the 10 commandments up on his
courtroom wall
equate to Congress establishing a religion?

rofl I KNEW you had no idea what you are talking about.

"An establishment of religion" means any already-established church
or faith.

What's amazing is many people can blast him for standing up for what
he believed in, yet cheer the mayor in San Fransico for selling
thousands of fake marriage documents to the gays and making probably
millions off of a piece of worthless paper.

Plenty of people blasted Mayor Newsom, and plenty of people cheered
that judge. Don't let your biases interfere with your ability to
listen.

You are probably right.
But the point I am trying to make is this...

Judge Moore, took a utilitarianism approach. He did what he thought
was morally right.
Mayor Newsom, same thing.
The same people that I hear blasting Moore, for doing what he thought
was right are cheering for the Mayor. Both operated on what they
thought was morally right.

I think it's more complicated than that. Newsom was playing to a
political constituency, and IMO doing a bit of grandstanding. I happen
to agree with what he did, since the marriages were civil and not
religious, but his timing was not very good - I think he started
something that contributed to the Democratic presidential loss.

Judge Moore is IMO a different case. He is a jurist, and therefore
should have known better. Presumably he understood the church-state
issues and, as a jurist, he is obligated to support them. He damaged
himself in two ways: first, he compromised his objectivity. A number
of individuals who might have appeared in his court would now ask him
to recuse himself because of his evident religious bias. Second, he
protested incorrectly - he would have been far more effective had he
resigned and delivered a blast of a resignation letter. Not only would
he have taken the high road, he would have had the last word. Now, all
we will hear of him until he runs for office or becomes attorney
general is that he was removed from the bench. Sort of a Gary Hart,
with tablets.

What should have happened is that the governor of Alabama should have
said that Roy Moore has broken no state law by having the 10
Commandments in his courtroom and any court order to remove them would
be illegal.

That would have violated church-state separation.

No such thing.

Not only that, he would have had to recuse himself from any cases where
litigants did not trust his objectivity. Further, there would have been
no way to stop Buddhist judges from displaying sutras, Moslem judges
from keeping a copy of the Koran on their desk, other Christians from
displaying crosses, etc. etc. Which would, as pointed out earlier, have
violated the third prong of the Lemon test.

Reverse it - what if a Moslem judge kept a conspicuous copy of the Koran
on his desk?

That's his choice.

"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote in
news:3wBEd.3338$C52.1700@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:

"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:quednUc_C_zsQ3_cRVn-og@rcn.net...

After reading about Newdow's new anti-religious lawsuit plans I was
inspired (not religiously so) with this question...

Does the establishment clause actually imply a separation of church and
state or is the left yet again trying to trample the Constitution?"

Answer: The "separation of church and state," as it's interpreted
today, is
not only wrong, it stands the First Amendment, which was designed to
protect religious liberties, on its head. The First Amendment reads,

"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; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So, how does a judge putting the 10 commandments up on his courtroom
wall equate to Congress establishing a religion? Who can believe that
some kid singing "Away in a Manger" at an elementary school concert
somehow means the Federal Government is declaring Christianity to be
the state religion?

The 14th amendment binds State governments to the Constitution as well.

Wrong. The Fourteenth Amendment does no such thing.

Because the Fourteenth
Amendment did not apply the Establishment Clause to the states is why the
Blaine Amendment was proposed which read: "No state shall make any law
respecting an establishment of religion . . . ." Blaine expressly stated
in 1875 that he had proposed the Blaine Amendment because the Fourteenth
Amendment did not hold the states to the Establishment Clause. Blaine
said no constitutional provision, not even the Fourteenth Amendment,
prevented the states from establishing churches. "A majority of the people
in any State in this Union can therefore, if they desire it, have an
established church," Blaine said.
Moreover, the Senate sponsor of the Blaine Amendment thought that the
Fourteenth Amendment did not apply the Establishment Clause to the states.
In 1876, he argued that the Blaine Amendment should be adopted because
the Blaine Amendment "very properly extends the prohibition of the first
amendment of the Constitution to the States [and] prohibits the States,
FOR THE FIRST TIME, from the establishment of religion."