| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Gactimus" |
| Date: |
10 Jan 2005 01:58:41 PM |
| Object: |
Religious Atheism and the Separation of Church and State |
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?
When the Founding Fathers were around, they studied the Bible in public
schools and there were even official state religions. So, how is it that
today we can try to claim that the Founding Fathers considered those things
to be unconstitutional?
Separation of church and state, as it's interpreted today has nothing to do
with what the Founding Fathers intended and it has everything to do with
liberal, anti-Christian, zealots who are twisting the Constitution in order
to suit their own agenda.
.
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious Atheism and the Separation of Church and State |
13 Jan 2005 09:07:05 PM |
|
|
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
cptbanjo@aol.com wrote in
The Constitution may not change, but interpretations of it surely do.
Would the most ardent strict-construction-original-intent adherent
claim that we should ditch Brown v. Board of Education and go back to
1896's Plessy v. Ferguson, which held that the 14th Amendment (then
only 28 years old) didn't invalidate legally segregated schools?
The idea that interpretations of the Constitution can change undermines our
republic.
According to Gack the Air Force is unconstitutional because the
Constitution make no provision for any Air Force.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gactimus" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious Atheism and the Separation of Church and State |
14 Jan 2005 08:22:04 AM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:cs7d0o$a99$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
cptbanjo@aol.com wrote in
The Constitution may not change, but interpretations of it surely do.
Would the most ardent strict-construction-original-intent adherent
claim that we should ditch Brown v. Board of Education and go back to
1896's Plessy v. Ferguson, which held that the 14th Amendment (then
only 28 years old) didn't invalidate legally segregated schools?
The idea that interpretations of the Constitution can change undermines
our republic.
According to Gack the Air Force is unconstitutional because the
Constitution make no provision for any Air Force.
I see no constitutional conflict with the Air Force. Initially, it was
called the Army Air Force, in that it was a branch of the Army. The Air
Force is still an army, albeit one that flies. It also falls under the
common defense of the United States.
But if you're willing to give up on abortion, I'll be happy to see the Air
Force absorbed into the Navy and Army.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious Atheism and the Separation of Church and State |
14 Jan 2005 11:12:51 AM |
|
|
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
cptbanjo@aol.com wrote in
The Constitution may not change, but interpretations of it surely do.
Would the most ardent strict-construction-original-intent adherent
claim that we should ditch Brown v. Board of Education and go back to
1896's Plessy v. Ferguson, which held that the 14th Amendment (then
only 28 years old) didn't invalidate legally segregated schools?
The idea that interpretations of the Constitution can change undermines
our republic.
According to Gack the Air Force is unconstitutional because the
Constitution make no provision for any Air Force.
I see no constitutional conflict with the Air Force.
The Constutution allows for a Navy and an Army. No Air Force.
Initially, it was
called the Army Air Force,
You're either lying or mind-numbingly stupid. There was no "Army Air
Force" in the 18th century when the Constitution was written.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gactimus" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious Atheism and the Separation of Church and State |
14 Jan 2005 12:12:41 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:cs8uii$p9j$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
cptbanjo@aol.com wrote in
The Constitution may not change, but interpretations of it surely
do. Would the most ardent strict-construction-original-intent
adherent claim that we should ditch Brown v. Board of Education and
go back to 1896's Plessy v. Ferguson, which held that the 14th
Amendment (then only 28 years old) didn't invalidate legally
segregated schools?
The idea that interpretations of the Constitution can change
undermines our republic.
According to Gack the Air Force is unconstitutional because the
Constitution make no provision for any Air Force.
I see no constitutional conflict with the Air Force.
The Constutution allows for a Navy and an Army. No Air Force.
If you're willing to give up on abortion, I'll be happy to see the Air
Force absorbed into the Army and Navy.
The Constitution allows Congress to raise and support Armies. The Air
Force can be defined as an army, albeit an airborne army. The Constitution
does not state that there may or must be only one Army.
Since Congress also enjoys powers 'necessary and proper' to promote its
enumerated powers, the Air Force is constitutional in that it complements
the defense mission of the Army and Navy.
Initially, it was called the Army Air Force,
You're either lying or mind-numbingly stupid. There was no "Army Air
Force" in the 18th century when the Constitution was written.
Are you trying to look stupid? How hard is it to understand that the Air
Force was originally part of the Army under the Army Air Force?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious Atheism and the Separation of Church and State |
16 Jan 2005 12:30:53 AM |
|
|
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:cs8uii$p9j$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
cptbanjo@aol.com wrote in
The Constitution may not change, but interpretations of it surely
do. Would the most ardent strict-construction-original-intent
adherent claim that we should ditch Brown v. Board of Education and
go back to 1896's Plessy v. Ferguson, which held that the 14th
Amendment (then only 28 years old) didn't invalidate legally
segregated schools?
The idea that interpretations of the Constitution can change
undermines our republic.
According to Gack the Air Force is unconstitutional because the
Constitution make no provision for any Air Force.
I see no constitutional conflict with the Air Force.
The Constutution allows for a Navy and an Army. No Air Force.
If you're willing to give up on abortion, I'll be happy to see the Air
Force absorbed into the Army and Navy.
You are an idiot. First you insist that the interpretations of the
Constitution can't change, then you say that you'e willing to change
your interpretation.
The Constitution allows Congress to raise and support Armies.
And navies.
The Air
Force can be defined as an army, albeit an airborne army.
Just as the navy is a seaborn army.
Idiot
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gactimus" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious Atheism and the Separation of Church and State |
16 Jan 2005 08:37:15 AM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:csd1mt$nge$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:cs8uii$p9j$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
cptbanjo@aol.com wrote in
The Constitution may not change, but interpretations of it surely
do. Would the most ardent strict-construction-original-intent
adherent claim that we should ditch Brown v. Board of Education
and go back to 1896's Plessy v. Ferguson, which held that the 14th
Amendment (then only 28 years old) didn't invalidate legally
segregated schools?
The idea that interpretations of the Constitution can change
undermines our republic.
According to Gack the Air Force is unconstitutional because the
Constitution make no provision for any Air Force.
I see no constitutional conflict with the Air Force.
The Constutution allows for a Navy and an Army. No Air Force.
If you're willing to give up on abortion, I'll be happy to see the Air
Force absorbed into the Army and Navy.
You are an idiot. First you insist that the interpretations of the
Constitution can't change, then you say that you'e willing to change
your interpretation.
The Constitution allows Congress to raise and support Armies.
And navies.
The Air orce can be defined as an army, albeit an airborne army.
Just as the navy is a seaborn army.
The Constitution says Congress can raise armies. We have *the* Army which
is an army and we also have the Air Force is *an* army.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious Atheism and the Separation of Church and State |
16 Jan 2005 01:21:30 PM |
|
|
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:csd1mt$nge$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:cs8uii$p9j$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
cptbanjo@aol.com wrote in
The Constitution may not change, but interpretations of it surely
do. Would the most ardent strict-construction-original-intent
adherent claim that we should ditch Brown v. Board of Education
and go back to 1896's Plessy v. Ferguson, which held that the 14th
Amendment (then only 28 years old) didn't invalidate legally
segregated schools?
The idea that interpretations of the Constitution can change
undermines our republic.
According to Gack the Air Force is unconstitutional because the
Constitution make no provision for any Air Force.
I see no constitutional conflict with the Air Force.
The Constutution allows for a Navy and an Army. No Air Force.
If you're willing to give up on abortion, I'll be happy to see the Air
Force absorbed into the Army and Navy.
You are an idiot. First you insist that the interpretations of the
Constitution can't change, then you say that you'e willing to change
your interpretation.
The Constitution allows Congress to raise and support Armies.
And navies.
The Air orce can be defined as an army, albeit an airborne army.
Just as the navy is a seaborn army.
The Constitution says Congress can raise armies.
And navies.
We have *the* Army which
is an army and we also have the Air Force is *an* army.
And the navy which is "*an* army".
Why then does the constitution refer to a navy and not a seaborn army?
Why are you INTERPRETING the constitution when you said that doing so
is wrong?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gactimus" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious Atheism and the Separation of Church and State |
16 Jan 2005 07:04:19 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:cseerq$f0d$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:csd1mt$nge$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:cs8uii$p9j$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
cptbanjo@aol.com wrote in
The Constitution may not change, but interpretations of it
surely do. Would the most ardent
strict-construction-original-intent adherent claim that we
should ditch Brown v. Board of Education and go back to 1896's
Plessy v. Ferguson, which held that the 14th Amendment (then
only 28 years old) didn't invalidate legally segregated schools?
The idea that interpretations of the Constitution can change
undermines our republic.
According to Gack the Air Force is unconstitutional because the
Constitution make no provision for any Air Force.
I see no constitutional conflict with the Air Force.
The Constutution allows for a Navy and an Army. No Air Force.
If you're willing to give up on abortion, I'll be happy to see the
Air Force absorbed into the Army and Navy.
You are an idiot. First you insist that the interpretations of the
Constitution can't change, then you say that you'e willing to change
your interpretation.
The Constitution allows Congress to raise and support Armies.
And navies.
The Air orce can be defined as an army, albeit an airborne army.
Just as the navy is a seaborn army.
The Constitution says Congress can raise armies.
And navies.
The constitution gives Congress the power to raise armies and a navy. It
doesn't say that Congress can only have *the* Army.
We have *the* Army which is an army and we also have the Air Force is
*an* army.
And the navy which is "*an* army".
Why then does the constitution refer to a navy and not a seaborn army?
Why are you INTERPRETING the constitution when you said that doing so
is wrong?
There's nothing to interpret. An air force is constitutional. Article I,
Section 8 gives Congress the power to raise and fund the armed forces of
the United States. That the Air Force is a separate branch of the armed
forces is an organizational detail, and is irrelevant to the
constitutionality of the Air Force.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious Atheism and the Separation of Church and State |
18 Jan 2005 04:46:38 AM |
|
|
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
cptbanjo@aol.com wrote in
The Constitution may not change, but interpretations of it
surely do. Would the most ardent
strict-construction-original-intent adherent claim that we
should ditch Brown v. Board of Education and go back to 1896's
Plessy v. Ferguson, which held that the 14th Amendment (then
only 28 years old) didn't invalidate legally segregated schools?
The idea that interpretations of the Constitution can change
undermines our republic.
According to Gack the Air Force is unconstitutional because the
Constitution make no provision for any Air Force.
I see no constitutional conflict with the Air Force.
The Constutution allows for a Navy and an Army. No Air Force.
If you're willing to give up on abortion, I'll be happy to see the
Air Force absorbed into the Army and Navy.
You are an idiot. First you insist that the interpretations of the
Constitution can't change, then you say that you'e willing to change
your interpretation.
The Constitution allows Congress to raise and support Armies.
And navies.
The Air orce can be defined as an army, albeit an airborne army.
Just as the navy is a seaborn army.
The Constitution says Congress can raise armies.
And navies.
The constitution gives Congress the power to raise armies and a navy. It
doesn't say that Congress can only have *the* Army.
We have *the* Army which is an army and we also have the Air Force is
*an* army.
And the navy which is "*an* army".
Why then does the constitution refer to a navy and not a seaborn army?
Why are you INTERPRETING the constitution when you said that doing so
is wrong?
There's nothing to interpret.
And yet, here you are, interpreting it to mean whatever you want.
An air force is constitutional.
According to your interpretation.
Article I,
Section 8 gives Congress the power to raise and fund the armed forces of
the United States.
Specifically armies and a navy.
That the Air Force is a separate branch of the armed
There is no mention of any Air Force.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gactimus" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious Atheism and the Separation of Church and State |
18 Jan 2005 07:39:06 AM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:csipee$36b$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
cptbanjo@aol.com wrote in
The Constitution may not change, but interpretations of it
surely do. Would the most ardent
strict-construction-original-intent adherent claim that we
should ditch Brown v. Board of Education and go back to 1896's
Plessy v. Ferguson, which held that the 14th Amendment (then
only 28 years old) didn't invalidate legally segregated
schools?
The idea that interpretations of the Constitution can change
undermines our republic.
According to Gack the Air Force is unconstitutional because the
Constitution make no provision for any Air Force.
I see no constitutional conflict with the Air Force.
The Constutution allows for a Navy and an Army. No Air Force.
If you're willing to give up on abortion, I'll be happy to see the
Air Force absorbed into the Army and Navy.
You are an idiot. First you insist that the interpretations of the
Constitution can't change, then you say that you'e willing to change
your interpretation.
The Constitution allows Congress to raise and support Armies.
And navies.
The Air orce can be defined as an army, albeit an airborne army.
Just as the navy is a seaborn army.
The Constitution says Congress can raise armies.
And navies.
The constitution gives Congress the power to raise armies and a navy. It
doesn't say that Congress can only have *the* Army.
We have *the* Army which is an army and we also have the Air Force is
*an* army.
And the navy which is "*an* army".
Why then does the constitution refer to a navy and not a seaborn army?
Why are you INTERPRETING the constitution when you said that doing so
is wrong?
There's nothing to interpret.
And yet, here you are, interpreting it to mean whatever you want.
An air force is constitutional.
According to your interpretation.
Article I,
Section 8 gives Congress the power to raise and fund the armed forces of
the United States.
Specifically armies and a navy.
That the Air Force is a separate branch of the armed
There is no mention of any Air Force.
Amazingly enough, the founding fathers understood that they couldn't
think of everything, so they added this little bit to Article II,
Section 2:
Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of
the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators
present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and
Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public
Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and **all other
Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein
otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law:** but
the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior
Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts
of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
Let's repeat that section: "all other Officers of the United States,
whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which
shall be established by Law"
The United States Air Force was created in 1947, as part of the
National Security Act.
http://www.iwar.org.uk/sigint/resources/national-security-act/1947-act.htm
You might note that the Constitution does not mention the Departments
of State, Treasury, Interior, or Justice, yet the very first Congress
had no problem passing legislation creating these departments in 1797.
news:i5fgu0lkimhkurlgi75vvlfme8fu9884qa@4ax.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gactimus" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious Atheism and the Separation of Church and State |
14 Jan 2005 12:20:34 PM |
|
|
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in
news:tYTFd.27474$Xs6.5590@twister.nyroc.rr.com:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:cs8uii$p9j$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
cptbanjo@aol.com wrote in
The Constitution may not change, but interpretations of it surely
do. Would the most ardent strict-construction-original-intent
adherent claim that we should ditch Brown v. Board of Education and
go back to 1896's Plessy v. Ferguson, which held that the 14th
Amendment (then only 28 years old) didn't invalidate legally
segregated schools?
The idea that interpretations of the Constitution can change
undermines our republic.
According to Gack the Air Force is unconstitutional because the
Constitution make no provision for any Air Force.
I see no constitutional conflict with the Air Force.
The Constutution allows for a Navy and an Army. No Air Force.
If you're willing to give up on abortion, I'll be happy to see the Air
Force absorbed into the Army and Navy.
The Constitution allows Congress to raise and support Armies. The Air
Force can be defined as an army, albeit an airborne army. The
Constitution does not state that there may or must be only one Army.
Since Congress also enjoys powers 'necessary and proper' to promote its
enumerated powers, the Air Force is constitutional in that it
complements the defense mission of the Army and Navy.
Initially, it was called the Army Air Force,
You're either lying or mind-numbingly stupid. There was no "Army Air
Force" in the 18th century when the Constitution was written.
Are you trying to look stupid? How hard is it to understand that the Air
Force was originally part of the Army under the Army Air Force?
Or more technically, the Army Air Corps.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious Atheism and the Separation of Church and State |
14 Jan 2005 03:52:24 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 17:12:51 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and
drunkenly proclaimed the following
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
I see no constitutional conflict with the Air Force.
The Constutution allows for a Navy and an Army. No Air Force.
Amazingly enough, the founding fathers understood that they couldn't
think of everything, so they added this little bit to Article II,
Section 2:
Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of
the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators
present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and
Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public
Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and **all other
Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein
otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law:** but
the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior
Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts
of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
Let's repeat that section: "all other Officers of the United States,
whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which
shall be established by Law"
The United States Air Force was created in 1947, as part of the
National Security Act.
http://www.iwar.org.uk/sigint/resources/national-security-act/1947-act.htm
You might note that the Constitution does not mention the Departments
of State, Treasury, Interior, or Justice, yet the very first Congress
had no problem passing legislation creating these departments in 1797.
Initially, it was
called the Army Air Force,
You're either lying or mind-numbingly stupid. There was no "Army Air
Force" in the 18th century when the Constitution was written.
Actully, the force was created in 1907 as the Aeronautical Division of
the Army Signal Corps. Later, that became the Army Air Corps. After
WWII, the Air Corps became the USAF.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
