SENATE SHOULD REJECT EXTREME JUDICIAL NOMINEE

Religions > Atheism > SENATE SHOULD REJECT EXTREME JUDICIAL NOMINEE

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 2

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	""
Date:	08 Jun 2005 05:14:00 AM
Object:	SENATE SHOULD REJECT EXTREME JUDICIAL NOMINEE

PRESS RELEASE ** PRESS RELEASE ** PRESS RELEASE
For Immediate Release
June 7, 2005
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
Contact: Rob Boston or Jeremy Leaming
www.au.org
SENATE SHOULD REJECT EXTREME JUDICIAL NOMINEE
AU's Lynn Says Janice Rogers Brown Is Wrong Choice To Serve On Federal
Appeals Court Bench
The Senate should reject Janice Rogers Brown, one of the Bush
administration's most extreme nominees to the federal bench, says Americans
United for Separation of Church and State.
A cloture vote on Brown's nomination is expected in the Senate today, with
a floor vote likely to follow soon afterward. If Brown's nomination is
approved, she will be sworn in to a lifetime appointment on one of the
nation's most significant federal appeals courts, the U.S. Appeals Court
for the District of Columbia.
Americans United has objected to Brown's nomination as one of the
administration's most outlandish.
"Janice Brown has shown a startling lack of judicial temperament," said the
Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. "She has
attacked the First Amendment principle of church-state separation as well
as other fundamental American principles of democracy. Her legal opinions
and public speeches on constitutional law provide senators ample reason to
scuttle this nomination."
Americans United has sent letters to the Senate Judiciary Committee
outlining Brown's troubling record. For example, in a 1999 speech at
Pepperdine University, Brown accused the Supreme Court of over-reliance "on
a rather uninformative metaphor of the 'wall of separation' between church
and state."
During the same speech, Brown proffered that the U.S. Supreme Court may
have been wrong in 1940 to assert that the 14th Amendment applies the Bill
of Rights to the states, a process known as "incorporation."
More recently, Brown has charged that the nation is in the midst of a "war"
over religious values.
Addressing a church-sponsored breakfast for judges and lawyers April 24 in
Connecticut, she asserted, "There seems to have been no time since the
Civil War that this country was so bitterly divided. It's not a shooting
war, but it is a war.... These are perilous times for people of faith, not
in the sense that we are going to lose our lives, but in the sense that it
will cost you something if you are a person of faith who stands up for what
you believe in and say those things out loud."
Lynn, urging senators to defeat Brown's nomination, argues that Brown's
views are wildly out of step with those held by mainstream jurists and
therefore she should be deemed unfit to serve on a federal appeals court.
Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington,
D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the
importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TAKE ACTION
Reject the Judicial Nomination of Janice Rogers Brown
Brown's views on religious liberty are extreme!
Go to: http://www.au.org/site/R?i=hAfrxRh0oTO8z7uQ4LkjDA..
www.au.org
You are invited to check out the following:
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and the discussion group for the above site listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
This site is a member of the following web rings:
Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
American History WebRing--&--The History Ring
Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring
Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring
****************************************************************
.

User: "Unpleasant Truth"
Title: Re: SENATE SHOULD REJECT EXTREME JUDICIAL NOMINEE	08 Jun 2005 09:24:19 PM

<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:m6hda1lpqjhlrj7pg0c58u7l4du3h9sof7@4ax.com...

with

a floor vote likely to follow soon afterward. If Brown's nomination is
approved, she will be sworn in to a lifetime appointment on one of the
nation's most significant federal appeals courts, the U.S. Appeals Court
for the District of Columbia.

Too late! She's in.

Americans United has objected to Brown's nomination as one of the
administration's most outlandish.

Good! Then anyone less "radical" will certainly not constitute the
"extraordinary circumstance" part of the filibuster deal.

"Janice Brown has shown a startling lack of judicial temperament," said

the

Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. "She has
attacked the First Amendment principle of church-state separation as

well
Which is only proper, since there IS no "First Amendment principle of
church-state separation" and never has been.
The First Amendment says only that there will be no national church.
There were three official state churches, supported with tax money, well
into the 1800s.

as other fundamental American principles of democracy. Her legal

opinions

and public speeches on constitutional law provide senators ample reason

scuttle this nomination."

Left wing senators who don't care about the constitution anyway.

During the same speech, Brown proffered that the U.S. Supreme Court may
have been wrong in 1940 to assert that the 14th Amendment applies the

Bill

of Rights to the states, a process known as "incorporation."

She's correct again. The founding fathers explicitly voted against
incorporation when drafting the constitution. And anyone who thinks the
states would have ratified the 14th Amendment if they had even an inkling
that it was intended to repeal the 10th Amendment is such a flaming left
wing moron, they should not be allowed anywhere near a court except as a
defendant.

More recently, Brown has charged that the nation is in the midst of a

"war"

over religious values.

And your evidence that her contention is wrong is ...?

Addressing a church-sponsored breakfast for judges and lawyers April 24

Connecticut, she asserted, "There seems to have been no time since the
Civil War that this country was so bitterly divided.

Even wacko left wingers agree with that assessment.

It's not a shooting
war, but it is a war.... These are perilous times for people of faith,

not

in the sense that we are going to lose our lives, but in the sense that

will cost you something if you are a person of faith who stands up for

what

you believe in and say those things out loud."

Unarguably true - proven by the anti-Christian left's jihad against her.

Lynn, urging senators to defeat Brown's nomination, argues that Brown's
views are wildly out of step with those held by mainstream jurists and
therefore she should be deemed unfit to serve on a federal appeals

court.
"Mainstream jurists" who are on the far left.

Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in

Washington,

D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the
importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.

Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group like the KKK was a
civil liberties watchdog group.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: SENATE SHOULD REJECT EXTREME JUDICIAL NOMINEE	10 Jun 2005 12:43:37 PM

"Unpleasant Truth" <no.one@nowhere.com> wrote:

You don't have a clue what you are talking about.
Explain any of the following if you can.
Study Guide: Separation of Church and State - Indepth
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd0.htm
You are invited to check out the following:
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and the discussion group for the above site listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
This site is a member of the following web rings:
Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
American History WebRing--&--The History Ring
Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring
Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring
****************************************************************
.

User: "Native American"
Title: Re: SENATE SHOULD CONTINUE GIVING UP OR DOWN VOTES ON PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEES	10 Jun 2005 01:01:04 PM

<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:68kja1pe5m2f6sminhq0ti19ivq2bl2vl7@4ax.com...

Explain any of the following if you can.

Study Guide: Separation of Church and State - Indepth
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd0.htm

Glad to explain it to you. It's called a "URL", and what it does is provide
an easy means for someone using what's called a "web browser" to read some
person's personal ruminations about some topic that is of interest to the
individual who wrote the material posted on that web site.
Do you have any questions or comments about the material contained therein?
.

User: "Dana"
Title: Re: SENATE SHOULD CONTINUE GIVING UP OR DOWN VOTES ON PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEES	10 Jun 2005 04:33:18 PM

"Native American" <NativeAmerican@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Azkqe.2071$pa3.417@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...

<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:68kja1pe5m2f6sminhq0ti19ivq2bl2vl7@4ax.com...

Explain any of the following if you can.

Study Guide: Separation of Church and State - Indepth
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd0.htm

Glad to explain it to you. It's called a "URL", and what it does is

provide

an easy means for someone using what's called a "web browser" to read some
person's personal ruminations about some topic that is of interest to the
individual who wrote the material posted on that web site.

Do you have any questions or comments about the material contained

therein?
That was an excellent reply.
This one is a keeper, just for the amusement factor.

User: ""
Title: Re: SENATE SHOULD CONTINUE GIVING UP OR DOWN VOTES ON PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEES	11 Jun 2005 03:54:02 PM

"Native American" <NativeAmerican@earthlink.net> wrote:

:|
:|<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
:|news:68kja1pe5m2f6sminhq0ti19ivq2bl2vl7@4ax.com...
:|> Explain any of the following if you can.
:|>
:|>
:|> Study Guide: Separation of Church and State - Indepth
:|> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd0.htm
:|
:|
:|
:|Glad to explain it to you. It's called a "URL", and what it does is provide
:|an easy means for someone using what's called a "web browser" to read some
:|person's personal ruminations about some topic that is of interest to the
:|individual who wrote the material posted on that web site.
:|
:|Do you have any questions or comments about the material contained therein?
:|

Duhhhhhhh, let's try it again
"Unpleasant Truth" <no.one@nowhere.com> wrote:

:|Which is only proper, since there IS no "First Amendment principle of
:|church-state separation" and never has been.
:|

You don't have a clue what you are talking about.
Explain any of the following if you can.
Study Guide: Separation of Church and State - Indepth
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd0.htm
Now, factually speaking this
Study Guide: Separation of Church and State - Indepth
is an article located at
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd0.htm
which is a URL that will take you to the article.
However, you attempt at "humor" or "cutsie" in an effort to avoid the
obvious condemns you.
The obvious, in case you hadn't noticed was, you can't support your
unsubstantiated comment if you were to go to the article located at that
URL. In short, that information in that artillery at that URL shows how
incorrect you really are.
*********************************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following, which of course you wouldn';t
dare.
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and the discussion group for the above site listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
This site is a member of the following web rings:
Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
American History WebRing--&--The History Ring
Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring
Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring
****************************************************************
.

User: "Native American"
Title: Re: SENATE SHOULD CONTINUE GIVING UP OR DOWN VOTES ON PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEES	11 Jun 2005 04:47:42 PM

<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:s9jma19ib5cld9irrp54taa5332vqvntb0@4ax.com...

Explain any of the following if you can.

Study Guide: Separation of Church and State - Indepth
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd0.htm

It's a URL, buckeye. Provides you a link over to some individual's
ruminations.
Got any comments or analysis of his ruminations to share with us, buckeye?
No, I thought not.....
.

User: ""
Title: Re: SENATE SHOULD CONTINUE GIVING UP OR DOWN VOTES ON PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEES	12 Jun 2005 01:07:24 PM

"Native American" <NativeAmerican@earthlink.net> wrote:

:|
:|<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
:|news:s9jma19ib5cld9irrp54taa5332vqvntb0@4ax.com...
:|> Explain any of the following if you can.
:|>
:|>
:|> Study Guide: Separation of Church and State - Indepth
:|> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd0.htm
:|
:|
:|It's a URL, buckeye. Provides you a link over to some individual's
:|ruminations.
:|
:|Got any comments or analysis of his ruminations to share with us, buckeye?
:|
:|No, I thought not.....
:|

Here dude, it would do you some good to go there yourself, you might learn
something
"Native American" <NativeAmerican@earthlink.net> wrote:

Duhhhhhhh, let's try it again
"Unpleasant Truth" <no.one@nowhere.com> wrote:

:|Which is only proper, since there IS no "First Amendment principle of
:|church-state separation" and never has been.
:|

You don't have a clue what you are talking about.
Explain any of the following if you can.
Study Guide: Separation of Church and State - Indepth
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd0.htm
Now, factually speaking this
Study Guide: Separation of Church and State - Indepth
is an article located at
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd0.htm
which is a URL that will take you to the article.
However, you attempt at "humor" or "cutsie" in an effort to avoid the
obvious condemns you.
The obvious, in case you hadn't noticed was, you can't support your
unsubstantiated comment if you were to go to the article located at that
URL. In short, that information in that artillery at that URL shows how
incorrect you really are.
*********************************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following, which of course you wouldn';t
dare.
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and the discussion group for the above site listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
This site is a member of the following web rings:
Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
American History WebRing--&--The History Ring
Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring
Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring
****************************************************************
.

User: "Native American"
Title: Re: SENATE SHOULD CONTINUE GIVING UP OR DOWN VOTES ON PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEES	12 Jun 2005 01:31:04 PM

<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:aduoa19mqp7vl36peor7g80iuqsgc52jsb@4ax.com...

"Native American" <NativeAmerican@earthlink.net> wrote:

Here dude, it would do you some good to go there yourself, you might learn
something

[plonk]
.

User: "Curly Surmudgeon"
Title: Re: SENATE SHOULD CONTINUE GIVING UP OR DOWN VOTES ON PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEES	12 Jun 2005 03:50:11 AM

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 21:47:42 +0000, Native American wrote:

<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:s9jma19ib5cld9irrp54taa5332vqvntb0@4ax.com...

Explain any of the following if you can.

Study Guide: Separation of Church and State - Indepth
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd0.htm

It's a URL, buckeye. Provides you a link over to some individual's
ruminations.

Got any comments or analysis of his ruminations to share with us, buckeye?

No, I thought not.....

What part of "Study Guide" do you fail to comprehend? Did you read the
text completely?
No, I thought not.....
-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://curlysurmudgeon.com/weird/political/bushle.gif
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.

User: "Info Junkie"
Title: Re: SENATE SHOULD CONTINUE GIVING UP OR DOWN VOTES ON PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEES	10 Jun 2005 04:35:58 PM

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 18:01:04 GMT, "Native American"
<NativeAmerican@earthlink.net> wrote:

<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:68kja1pe5m2f6sminhq0ti19ivq2bl2vl7@4ax.com...

Explain any of the following if you can.

Study Guide: Separation of Church and State - Indepth
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd0.htm

ROTFLMHO.
"...every person must be his own watchman for truth... -Justice Jackson
.

User: ""
Title: Re: SENATE SHOULD CONTINUE GIVING UP OR DOWN VOTES ON PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEES	15 Jun 2005 02:24:25 PM

(Info Junkie) wrote:

:|
:|ROTFLMHO.

Ahhhhh you famous ot infamous discourse.
How quaint, however, it is your speed
You are invited to check out the following:
{an offer which you, of course, would never accept, you might get
embarrassed]
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and the discussion group for the above site listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
This site is a member of the following web rings:
Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
American History WebRing--&--The History Ring
Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring
Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring
****************************************************************
.

User: "Unpleasant Truth"
Title: Re: SENATE SHOULD CONTINUE GIVING UP OR DOWN VOTES ON PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEES	15 Jun 2005 10:58:47 PM

<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:3301b198o88efk54etn7f0g1p76kor5aid@4ax.com...

bondrock@ifx.net (Info Junkie) wrote:

:|
:|ROTFLMHO.

Definitely recommended reading. Right up there with such other fantasies
as
The Constitutional Principle: Same Sex Marriage
The Constitutional Principle: Protection for Confiscation of Property
without Compensation
The Constitutional Principle: Protection for Infanticide
The Constitutional Principle: Protection for Euthanasia
The Constitutional Principle: Protection for Child Pornography
And many other extremist left wing policies, all in the constitution.
Not!
.

User: ""
Title: Re: SENATE SHOULD CONTINUE GIVING UP OR DOWN VOTES ON PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEES	16 Jun 2005 07:58:41 AM

"Unpleasant Truth" <no.one@nowhere.com> wrote:

:|
:|<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
:|> You are invited to check out the following:
:|> {an offer which you, of course, would never accept, you might get
:|> embarrassed]
:|>
:|> The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
:|> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
:|
:|Definitely recommended reading. Right up there with such other fantasies
:|as

Deal with this fantasy: you won't, you can't You already decided to ignore
it once since you are incapable pf showing how it would be a fantasy in any
manner shape or form
*****************************************************************************************
"Unpleasant Truth" <no.one@nowhere.com> wrote

This says you are incorrect:
Study Guide: Separation of Church and State - Indepth
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd0.htm

Glad you mentioned Madison
Study Guide: Separation of Church and State - Indepth
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd0.htm
{excerpts from]
************************************************************
James Madison on Separation of Church and State
Direct references to separation to be found in the writings of James
Madison
----------------------------------------
OCTOBER 1, 1803
Notes for annual message, Oct. 17, 1803: alterations and additions, etc [1]
(3) after "assure"-are proposed "in due season, and under prudent
arrangements, important aids to our Treasury, as well as," an ample etc.
Quere: if the two or three succeeding paragraphs be not more
adapted to the separate and subsequent communication, if adopted as above
suggested.
(4) For the first sentence, may be substituted "In the territory between
the Mississippi and the Ohio another valuable acquisition has been made by
a treaty etc."[3.] As it stands, it does not sufficiently distinguish the
nature of the one acquisition from that of the other, and seems to imply
that the acquisition from France was wholly on the other side of the
Mississippi
May it not be as well to omit the detail of the stipulated
considerations, and particularly that of the Roman Catholic Pastor. The
jealousy of some may see in it a principle, not according with the
exemption of Religion from Civil power. In the Indian Treaty it will be
less noticed than in a President's speech.[4.]
FOOTNOTES:
[1.] For TJ's third annual message to Congress, Oct. 17, 1803, see Ford,
VIII, pp. 266-7)
[3.] TI's message announced the acquisition of territory by treaty from the
Kaskaskia Indians; see
Ford, VIII, pp. 269-70.
[4.] TJ accepted JM's suggestion to omit any discussion of Indian treaty
requirements to maintain a Roman Catholic priest, leaving the stipulations
in the treaty to "the competence of both
houses.... as soon as the senate shall have advised its ratification"; see
ibid.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, Washington, Oct.
1, 1803, Notes for annual message, Oct. 17, 1803: alterations and
additions, etc.[1.],
The Republic of Letters, the Correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and
James Madison, 1776-1826, Edited by James Morton Smith, Vol. II, 1790
-1804, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, London, (1995) pp 1297-98)
---------------------------------------------------
JUNE 3, 1811
"To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I
have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the
Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem
Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical
distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the
purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States,
I could not have other wise discharged my duty on the
occasion which presented itself"
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June
3, 1811. Letters And Other Writings of James Madison Fourth President Of
The United States In Four Volumes Published By the Order Of Congress,
Vol..II, J. B. Lippincott & Co., Philadelphia, (1865) pp 511-512)
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARCH 2, 1819
"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated
hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions
with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of
the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly
increased by the total separation of the church from the State."
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excert of a letter to Robert Walsh from James
Madison. MARCH 2, 1819 Letters and Other writings of James Madison, in
Four Volumes, Published by Order of Congress. VOL. III, J. B. Lippincott &
Co. Philadelphia, (1865), pp 121-126. James Madison on Religious Liberty,
Robert S.Alley, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N.Y. (1985) pp 82-83)
----------------------------------------------------------
1817-1833
"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and Gov't in the
Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by
Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents' already furnished
in their short history"
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excerpt from Madison's Detached Memoranda. 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. The entire document was published by
Elizabeth Fleet in the William and Mary Quarterly of October 1946.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
JULY 10, 1822
"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation
between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have
no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done,
in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity
the less they are mixed together"
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excerpt of letter to Edward Livingston from James
Madison, July 10, 1822. Letters and Other writings of James Madison, in
Four Volumes, Published by Order of Congress. VOL. III, J. B. Lippincott &
Co. Philadelphia, (1865), pp 273-276. James Madison on Religious Liberty,
Robert S.Alley, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N.Y. (1985) pp 82-83)
--------------------------------------------------------------
SEPTEMBER 1833
"I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to
trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil
authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on
unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other
or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded
against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way
whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting
each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others".
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Letter written by James Madison to Rev. Jasper
Adams, September, 1833.Writings of James Madison, edited by Gaillard Hunt,
[not sure what the volume number is but have enough information presented
here to locate the letter] microform Z1236.L53, pp 484-488. )
*********************************************************************
followed by
Separation of church and state, the principle, where can it be found, or
can it be found in the Constitution?
One might consider the following:
====================================================================
Directly, the unamended constitution, Article VI, Section III
" but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any
office or public trust under the United States."
-----------------------------
"The remaining part of the clause declares, that 'no religious test shall
ever be required, as a qualification to any office or public trust, under
the United States.' This clause is not introduced merely for the purpose
of satisfying the scruples of many respectable persons, who feel an
invincible repugnance to any test or affirmation. It had a higher object;
to cut off for ever every pretence of any alliance between church and
state in the national government.
(COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, by Supreme Court
Justice Joseph Story, Vol III, (1833) pg 705)
------------------------------------------------------
Then, indirectly the entire document (unamended constitution) as a whole.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Thomas Tucker on Church and State, September 1789
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/basic2a.htm
and
Madison's vetoes: Some of The First Official Meanings Assigned to The
Establishment Clause
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/madvetos.htm

:|NATIONAL RELIGION. That's it. No National Church, as they had in
:|England.
:|In fact, at that very time three of the colonies had official state
:|churches, supported with taxpayer money. And those remained in place
:|after ratification of the First Amendment and well into the 1800s.
:|
:|END OF DISCUSSION (although, of course, there is a wealth of historical
:|documentation refuting the so-called "Constitutional Principle of
:|Separation of Church and State" and none to support it and the overt
:|hostility to religion coming from the fanatical secularists. Even
:|Jefferson himself wrote:

Naaaaaaaa, not even close:
o James Madison And National Religion
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/madnational.htm
more from
Study Guide: Separation of Church and State - Indepth
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd0.htm
{excerpts from]
February 2, 1790
.. . . a very interesting debate in the House of Representatives,
February 2, 1790, when the question of the Federal census was under
consideration. The bill, as reported, provided for the enumeration of
farmers, mechanics, and other groups, but did not include the learned
professions. Theodore Sedgwick of Massachusetts (1746-1813) suggested
that it should "specify every class of citizens, into which the
community was divided, in order to ascertain the actual state of the
society." Mr. Madison, in his reply, said:
The gentleman from Massachusetts has asked, why the learned
professions were not included? I have no objection to giving a column
to the general body. I think the work would be rendered more complete
by the addition, and if the decision of such a motion turned upon my
voice, they shall be added. But it may nevertheless be observed, that
in such a character they can never be objects of legislative attention
or cognizance. As to those who are employed in teaching and
inculcating the duties of religion, there may be some indelicacy in
singling them out, as the General Government is proscribed from
interfering, in any manner whatever, in matters respecting religion;
and it may be thought to do this, in ascertaining who, and who are not
ministers of the Gospel. Conceiving the extension of the plan to be
useful however, and not difficult, I hope it may meet the ready
concurrence of this House. (295)
Footnote:
295. Gales, Joseph, Sr. Debates and Proceedings of the Congress of
the United States (Washington , 1834) I, 1106-1108
Source of Information Church and State in the United States, Anson
Phelps Stokes, D.D., L.L.D, Harper & Bros, N Y (1950) Vol. I, p. 346
1790
*******************************************************************************
March 5, 1798
GENERAL + A U R O R A + ADVERTISER
MONDAY MARCH 5, 1798
Take notice! Something very like this happened on the 4th of
March, 1797. The American Constitution has no relation to the
Christian religion: Yet Mr. Adams, before taking his oath of office,
made a long exordium to this purpose: viz, that, although the
constitution makes no distinction in favour of the Christian religion,
yet that he (Mr. Adams) in nominating to public offices would always
have a special eye to that point. This truth was thereafter sent to
the press.
In July or August last, when the author of the history of 1796 or
in plain terms. when Hamilton came to Philadelphia to vindicate his
character by a confession of adultery, this identical and most
Christian president invited him to a family dinner with Mrs. Adams.
Such is his selection of company for the entertainment of his wife!
Oh, Johnny! Johnny!
Source of Information General Aurora Advertiser, March 5, 1798. MFILM
N.S. 12516 HF5862.A9
********************************************************************************\
***
May 9, 1798
GENERAL + AURORA + ADVERTISER
PHILADELPHIA
WEDNESDAY, MAY 9. 1798
The other papers of this city have chosen to be silent this day,
because the President has recommended a fast. We do not follow their
example:
Because there is nothing in the constitution giving authority to
proclaim fasts .
Because, if any such power can be considered, by implication, as
vested by the constitution, it would rather belong to the Legislators.
Because prayer, fasting, and humiliation are matters of religion
and conscience, with which government has nothing to do, but which
every individual is to attend to at such times, and in such manner, as
he shall deem fit.
And Because we consider a connection between state and church
affairs as dangerous to religious and political freedom and that,
therefore, every approach towards it should be discouraged.
Source of Information General Aurora Advertiser, May, 9, 1798,
Philadelphia, Penna. MFILM N.S. 12516 HF5862.A9
1800
********************************************************************************\
***
April 14, 1800
The Gazette
Philadelphia
Monday Evening, April 14.
The condition of Church and State in America is such as to fill
every considerate mind with the most unhappy sensations. In spite of
that vanity and fastidiousness which led the Federal Convention, in
founding their government, to preclude any connection, it will appear
in the end, even by our own deplorable example, that a strict and
indissoluble alliance of religion to government has been ordained in
the nature of things. Though formally sundered by Constitution and
laws; together they decline and together (it would seem) they are
likely to perish.
Source of Information The Gazette of the United States, April 14,
1800.Jan 1, 1800 TO Dec.31, 1800 MFILM N.S. 10953 AP2.05
January 1833
********************************************************************************\
*********
"The remaining part of the clause declares, that 'no religious
test shall ever be required, as a qualification to any office or
public trust, under the United States.' This clause is not introduced
merely for the purpose of satisfying the scruples of many respectable
persons, who feel an invincible repugnance to any test or affirmation.
It had a higher object; to cut off for ever every pretence of any
alliance between church and state in the national government. The
framers of the constitution were fully sensible of the dangers from
this source, marked out in history of other ages and countries; and
not wholly unknown to our own.
Commentaries on The Constitution of The United States, by Supreme
Court Justice Joseph Story, Vol III, (1833) pg 705.
********************************************************************************\
************
Commentary on Religious Tests and the Constitution
[Rev.] Linn's call for a religious test echoed a similar debate
held at the constitutional and ratifying conventions of 1787-1789.3
Opposing each other then were delegates with fundamental differences
in their conception of religion's proper place in American public
life. On one side were those stressing that America was a Christian
nation and should be led by Christians. On the other were those
emphasizing that the nation was a haven of religious freedom and
should separate matters of state and issues of faith. The latter
argument prevailed and resulted in a constitutional ban against
religious tests. But, while the Constitution guaranteed a secular
state, to many Americans who considered religion central in their
lives, especially defenders of Protestant orthodoxy, the issue was not
settled. They discovered during the presidential campaign of 1800 the
means and a forum for attaining their goal: a voterimposed religious
test to be won in the arena of public opinion. This essay explores
that heated and, often, acrimonious contest.
For the orthodox ministers who led the fight, the year 1800
represented their best opportunity since 1787 to argue that a
Christian nation must have Christian leaders.4 . . . The
Federalist-dominated Congress capitalized on the outsized fear of
foreign intrigue and restricted the free speech provisions of the
First Amendment by passing the Sedition Act, aimed squarely at
Jeffersonian newspaper editors. Some hoped that the current atmosphere
would permit a similar curb on freedom of religion. While a few
persons pondered ways to either amend or circumvent constitutional
safeguards protecting religion from state interference, most opted to
take their case directly to the people and seek a voter-imposed
religious test that would bar Jefferson from the White House.
Historians have analyzed the religious question in 1800 from
several perspectives. One scholar viewed it as a profound "political
struggle between rationalist Christianity and Protestant orthodoxy."
In this interpretation, the combatants fought over what was "true"
faith and which expression would best provide American society with a
firm moral base.5 To another, the matter was one between "secular
humanists" who wanted no discussion of religion at all in matters of
state but were not necessarily antireligious and those religious
leaders who wished to present the campaign as one for the survival of
orthodox Christianity in the republic.6 And yet another, borrowing
from Jefferson's own analysis of the campaign, conceived of the fight
over religion as narrow-minded sectarian bigotry.7
3. For the debate over religious tests at the constitutional and
ratifying conventions, see Daniel Dreisbach, "The Constitution's
Forgotten Religion Clause: Reflections on the Article VI Religious
Test Ban," Journal Of Church and State 38 (Spring 1996): 261-96;
Morton Borden, Jews, Turks, and Infidels (Chapel Hill, N.C.:
University of North Carolina Press, 1984); John M. Murrin, "Religion
and Politics in America from the First Settlements to the Civil War,"
in Religion and American Politics: From the Colonial Period to the
1980s, ed. Mark A. Noll (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990),
19-43; Jackson Turner Main, The Antifederalists: Critics of the
Constitution, 1781-1788 (Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North
Carolina Press, 1961); James H. Smyhe, "Protestant Clergy, the First
Amendment, and Beginnings of a Constitutional Debate, 1781-1791," in
The Religion of the Republic, ed. Elwyn A. Smith (Philadelphia, Penn.:
Fortress Press, 1971), 116-53; and Edwin Gaustad, "Religious Tests,
Constitutions, and a 'Christian Nation'," in Religion in a
Revolutionary Age, eds. Ronald Hoffman and Peter J. Albert
(Charlottesville, Va.: University Press of Virginia, 1994), 218-35.
4. On religion and the campaign of 1800, see Mark A. Noll, One
Nation Under God? (New York: Harper and Row, 1988), 74-89; Charles F.
O'Brien, "The Religious Issue in the Presidential Campaign of
1800,"Essex Institute Historical Collections 107 (January 1971):
82-93; Constance B. Schulz, "`Of Bigotry in Politics and Religion':
Jefferson's Religion, the Federalist Press, and the Syllabus," The
Virginia Magazine of Biography and History 91 (January 1983): 73-91;
Charles O. Lerche, Jr., "Jefferson and the Election of 1800: A Case
Study in the Political Smear," William and Mary Quarterly 5 (October
1948): 467-91; Fred C. Luebke, "The Origins of Thomas Jefferson's
Anti-Clericalism," Church History 32 (September 1963): 344-56; and L.
H. Butterfeld, "Elder John Leland, Jeffersonian Itinerant,"
Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society 62 (October 1952): 214-29.
5. See O'Brien, "The Religious Issue in the Presidential Campaign
of 1800."
6. John Murrin, "Religion and Politics in America from the First
Settlements to the Civil War," inReligion and American Politics, ed.
Noll, 19-43.
7. Schulz. "Of Bigotry in Politics and Religion."
Source of Information "God-And a Religious President . . . Or
Jefferson and No God": Campaigning for a Voter-Imposed Religious Test
in 1800, Frank Lambert, pp 770-71 Journal Of Church and State , Volume
39 Autumn 1997 Number 4
********************************************************************************\
********
A Solemn Address to Christians & Patriots,
upon the Approaching Election of a President of the United
States in Answer to a Pamphlet, Entitled, "Serious
Confiderations," &C.
New-York; Printed by David Denniston. 1800.
D E D I C A T 1 O N To the Reverend Dr. Linn
"Thou shalt not bear false-witness against thy neighbour."
-The ninth commandment.
TO M Y R E A D E R S
In the ensuing observations, I shall consider your duties as
christians and as patriots. I shall make it my task to establish the
following propositions.
1st. That it is your duty, as christians, to maintain the purity
and independence of the church, to keep religion separate from
politics, to prevent an union between the church and the state, and to
preserve your clergy from temptation, corruption and reproach.
Timoleon
We have years and volumes-we have a world of experience before us,
in the sufferings and the miseries of ages-we read a lesson too
impressive to be resisted: both as christians and as men, we are
powerfully conjured to reject all attempts to promote an union between
the church and the state-the very idea of such a union is
insupportable. Neither directly or indirectly should we suffer it to
be effected.
Religion and government are equally necessary, but their interests
should be kept separate and distinct. No legitimate connection can
ever subsist between them. Upon no plan, no system, can they become
united, without endangering the purity and usefulness of both -the
church will corrupt the state, and the state pollute the church.
Christianity becomes no longer the religion of God-it becomes the
religion of temporal craft and expediency and policy. Instead of being
the sacred guide to lead mankind to heaven, it becomes the prostituted
instrument of private cupidity and personal ambition. I am not to be
told there is no longer danger in such an alliance; the danger has
always existed, and as long as men retain their passions and vices,
will exist in all its force.
Source of Information Excerpts from "A Solemn Address to Christians &
Patriots, Upon The Approaching Election of a President of the United
States," Political Sermons of the American Founding Era, 1730-1805,
Edited by Ellis Sandoz, Liberty press, pp. 1481-1528.
********************************************************************************\
***********
September 23, 1800
TO DR. BENJAMIN RUSH(1)
Monticello, September 23, 1800
.. . . The delusion into which the X. Y. Z. plot showed it
possible to push the people; the successful experiment made under the
prevalence of that delusion on the clause of the Constitution, which,
while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of
religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an
establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United
States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every
one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and
Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens
abortion to their hopes, and they believe that any portion of power
confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And
they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal
hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this
is all they have to fear from me: & enough too in their opinion, &
this is the cause of their printing lying pamphlets against me,
forging conversations for me with Mazzei, Bishop Madison, &c., which
are absolute falsehoods without a circumstance of truth to rest on;
falsehoods, too, of which I acquit Mazzei & Bishop Madison, for they
are men of truth.--But enough of this. It is more than I have before
committed to paper on the subject of all the lies which have been
preached or printed against me. . . .
Footnote
(1).Dr. Benjamin Rush, distinguished American physician and
humanitarian, and Jefferson, were fellow-members of the American
Philosophical Society. They corresponded frequently.
(2). The irritable tribe of priests.
Source of Information Excerpt from letter from Thomas Jefferson to Dr.
Benjamin Rush, September 23, 1800.The Works of Thomas Jefferson In
Twelve Volumes, Federal edition. Collected and edited by Paul
Leicester Ford. Volume X, G. P. Putnam's Sons, The Knickerbocker
Press. (1905) pp 148-49.
October 6, 1800
********************************************************************************\
**
From Benjamin Rush
Philadelphia October 6th 1800
Dear Sir
I agree with you in your Opinion of Cities. Cowper the Poet very
happily expresses our ideas of them compared with the Country. "God
made the Country--man made Cities." I consider them in the same light
that I do Abscesses on the human body viz: as resevoirs of all the
impurities of a Community.
I agree with you likewise in your wishes to keep religion and
government independant of each Other. Were it possible for St. Paul to
rise from his grave at the present juncture, he would say to the
Clergy who are now so active in settling the political Affairs of the
World: "Cease from your political labors-your kingdom is not of this
World. Read my Epistles. In no part of them will you perceive me
aiming to depose a pagan Emperor, or to place a Christian upon a
throne. Christianity disdains to receive Support from human
Governments." From this, it derives its preeminence over all the
religions that ever have, or ever shall exist in the World. Human
Governments may receive
Source of Information Excerpt from letter from Benjamin Rush to
Jefferson, October 6, 1800. RC (DLC); endorsed by TJ as received 16
Oct. [1800] and so recorded in SJL. pp 321
Source of Information The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, 2nd series,
Jefferson's Extracts from the Gospels, "The Philosophy of Jesus" and
"The Life and Morals of Jesus." Dickinson W. Adams, Editor, Princeton
University Press, Princeton, N J, (1983) pp 405-06.
********************************************************************************\
**********
MARCH 23, 1801
To Moses Robinson
Washington Mar. 23. 1801.
Dear Sir
.. . . The eastern states will be the last to come over, on account of
the dominion of the clergy, who had got a smell of union between
church and state. and began to indulge reveries which can never be
realized in the present state of science.
Source of Information Letter to Moses Robinson from Jefferson, March
23, 1801. PrC (DLC) pp 324 EXTRACTS
Source of Information
The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, 2nd series, Jefferson's Extracts from
the Gospels, "The Philosophy of Jesus" and "The Life and Morals of
Jesus." Dickinson W. Adams, Editor, Princeton University Press,
Princeton, N J, (1983) pp 405-06.
********************************************************************************\
******
May 3, 1801
"The clergy, who have missed their union with the state, the anglo
men, who have missed their union with England, the political
adventurers who have lost the chance of swindling & plunder in the
waste of public money, will never cease to bawl, on the breaking up of
their sanctuary."
Source of Information original source for quote -Thomas Jefferson to
Postmaster-General Gideon Granger, May 3, 1801, Works: Ford IX, 249,-
quote appearing in The Life of John Marshall, By Albert J Beveridge
Vol. III, page 15, published 1917.
********************************************************************************\
**********
October 1, 1803
Notes for annual message, Oct. 17, 1803: alterations and additions,
etc [1] (3) after "assure"-are proposed "in due season, and under
prudent arrangements, important aids to our Treasury, as well as," an
ample etc.
Quere: if the two or three succeeding paragraphs be not more adapted
to the separate and subsequent communication, if adopted as above
suggested.
(4) For the first sentence, may be substituted "In the territory
between the Mississippi and the Ohio another valuable acquisition has
been made by a treaty etc."[3.] As it stands, it does not sufficiently
distinguish the nature of the one acquisition from that of the other,
and seems to imply that the acquisition from France was wholly on the
other side of the Mississippi
May it not be as well to omit the detail of the stipulated
considerations, and particularly that of the Roman Catholic Pastor.
The jealousy of some may see in it a principle, not according with the
exemption of Religion from Civil power. In the Indian Treaty it will
be less noticed than in a President's speech.[4.]
Footnotes:
[1.] For TJ's third annual message to Congress, Oct. 17, 1803, see
Ford, VIII, pp. 266-7.
[3.] TI's message announced the acquisition of territory by treaty
from the Kaskaskia Indians; see Ford, VIII, pp. 269-70.
[4.] TJ accepted JM's suggestion to omit any discussion of Indian
treaty requirements to maintain a Roman Catholic priest, leaving the
stipulations in the treaty to "the competence of both houses.... as
soon as the senate shall have advised its ratification"; see ibid.
Source of Information James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, Washington,
Oct. 1, 1803, Notes for annual message, Oct. 17, 1803: alterations and
additions, etc.[1.], The Republic of Letters, the Correspondence
between Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, 1776- 1826, Edited by
James Morton Smith, Vol. II, 1790 -1804, W. W. Norton & Company, New
York, London, (1995) pp 1297-98.
January 23, 1808
********************************************************************************\
********
Religious Proclamations Unconstitutional written by Thomas Jefferson
to the Rev. Mr. Millar [Emphasis in the original]
WASHINGTON, January 23, 1808
I have duly received your favor of the eighteenth, and am thankful to
you for having written it, because it is more agreeable to prevent
than to refuse what I do not think myself authorized to comply with. I
consider the government of the United States as INDICATED BY THE
CONSTITUTION FROM INTERMEDDLING WITH RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS, THEIR
DOCTRINES, DISCIPLINES, OR EXERCISES. (2) This results not with
religion. only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting
the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that, also,
which reserves to the States the powers not delegated to the United
Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume
authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the general
government. It must, then, rest with the States, as far as it can be
in any human authority. But it is only proposed that I should
RECOMMEND, not prescribe a day of fasting and prayer. That is, that I
should INDIRECTLY assume to the United States an authority over
religious exercises, WHICH THE CONSTITUTION HAS DIRECTLY PRECLUDED
THEM FROM. It must be meant, too, that this recommendation is to carry
some authority, and to be sanctioned by some penalty on those who
disregard it; not, indeed, of fine and imprisonment, but of some
degree of proscription, perhaps in public opinion. And does the change
in the nature of the penalty make the recommendation less a law of
conduct for those to whom it is directed, I do not believe it is for
the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct its
exercises, its discipline, or its doctrines; nor of the religious
societies, that the general government should be invested with the
power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them.
Fasting and prayer are religious exercises; the enjoining them, an act
of discipline.
Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times
for these exercises, and the objects proper for them, according to
their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in
their own hands, WHERE THE CONSTITUTION HAS DEPOSITED IT.
Source of Information American State Papers Bearing on Sunday
Legislation, compiled and annotated William Addison Blakely, Revised
Edition Edited by Willard Allen Colcord. The Religious Liberty
Association (1911) pages 174-175) (Original publication of letter,
Works of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Ford. Vol. 5, Pages 236-37).
********************************************************************************\
July 23, 1812
"The second of these reasons is, 'the sinful character of our
nation'. Notwithstanding the prevalence of Religion, which I have
described, the irreligion, and the wickedness, of our land are such,
as to furnish a most painful and melancholy prospect to a serious
mind. We formed our Constitution without any acknowledgement of GOD;
without any recognition of his mercies to us, as a people, of his
government, or even of his existence. The Convention, by which it was
formed, never asked, even once, his direction, or his blessing upon
their labours. Thus we commenced our national existence under the
present system, without GOD. I wish I could say, that a disposition to
render him the reverence, 'due to his' great 'Name', and the
gratitude, demanded by his innumerable mercies, had been more public,
visible, uniform, and fervent."
"At the same time I have no hesitation to say, that 'the
eagerness, with which public offices are hunted for', and the
sacrifices of principle and conscience, which, as we have but too much
reason to believe, are made, in order to acquire them, constitute a
great and dreadful sin; and are a deep brand upon the moral character
of our country...."
Source of Information "A discourse in two parts: delivered July 23,
1812, on the public fast, in the chapel of Yale College by Timothy
Dwight, D.D. L.L.D., President of that Seminary; Published at the
request of the students, and others;" New Haven, Published by Howe and
Deforest; Sold also by A.T. Goodrich and Co. No, 124, Broadway,
New-York; Printed by J.Seymour, 49, John-street, New-York, p. 40.
A Discourse in Two Parts, Reverend Timothy Dwight, 2nd ed. (Boston:
Flagg & Gould, 1813), p 24. The Rhetoric and Reality of the "Christian
Nation" Maxim in American Law, 1810-1920, By Steven Keith Green, an
unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation submitted to the Faculity of the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (1997) p 1.
********************************************************************************\
*********************************************************************
1846
"To the 1st Article of the amendments of the Constitution of the
United States, we may very well refer to ascertain the then
acknowledged sense, 'Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'
This was, the general law for all the union, as standing under the
legislation of Congress. There could be no union of church and state;
no religion established by law; nor could there be any law prohibiting
any man from worshiping God as he pleased."
South Carolina Supreme Court 1846, in the Case Known as City of
Charleston v Benjamin.
********************************************************************************\
************
September 17, 1856
"The manifest object of the men who framed the institutions of
this country, was to have a State without religion, and a Church
without politics -- that is to say, they meant that one should never
be: used as an engine for any purpose of the other, and that no man's
rights in one should be tested by his opinions about the other. As the
Church takes no note of men's political differences, so the State
looks with equal eye on all the modes of religious faith. The Church
may give her preferment to a Tory, and the State may be served by a
heretic. Our fathers seem to have been perfectly sincere in their
belief that the members of the Church would be more patriotic, and the
citizens of the State more religions, by keeping their respective
functions entirely separate. For that reason they built up a wall of
complete and perfect partition between the two."
Source of Information U.S. Attorney General Jeremiah S. Black,
"Religious liberty, An Address to the Phrenakosmian Society of
Pennsylvania College, Delivered at the Annual Commencement, 17
September 1856," in Essays and Speeches of Jeremiah S. Black (New
York: D Appleton, 1885), 53 "Sowing Useful Truths and principles": The
Danbury Baptists, Thomas Jefferson and the "Wall of Separation", By
Daniel L. Dreisbach, Journal Of Church and State, Volume 39, Summer
1997, Number 3, pp 492.
********************************************************************************\
**
1871
Three years after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, Mr.
Justice Bradley wrote a letter expressing his views on a proposed
constitutional amendment designed to acknowledge the dependence [374
U.S. 203, 258] of the Nation upon God, and to recognize the Bible as
the foundation of its laws and the supreme ruler of its conduct:
"I have never been able to see the necessity or expediency of the
movement for obtaining such an amendment. The Constitution was
evidently framed and adopted by the people of the United States with
the fixed determination to allow absolute religious freedom and
equality, and to avoid all appearance even of a State religion, or a
State endorsement of any particular creed or religious sect. . . . And
after the Constitution in its original form was adopted, the people
made haste to secure an amendment that Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof. This shows the earnest desire of our Revolutionary
fathers that religion should be left to the free and voluntary action
of the people themselves. I do not regard it as manifesting any
hostility to religion, but as showing a fixed determination to leave
the people entirely free on the subject.
"And it seems to me that our fathers were wise; that the great
voluntary system of this country is quite as favorable to the
promotion of real religion as the systems of governmental protection
and patronage have been in other countries. And whilst I do not
understand that the association which you represent desire to invoke
any governmental interference, still the amendment sought is a step in
that direction which our fathers (quite as good Christians as
ourselves) thought it wise not to take. In this country they thought
they had settled one thing at least, that it is not the province of
government to teach theology.
". . . Religion, as the basis and support of civil government,
must reside, not in the written Constitution, but in the people
themselves. And we cannot legislate religion into the people. It must
be infused by gentler and wiser methods."
Source of Information Miscellaneous Writings of Joseph P. Bradley
(1901), 357-359.
********************************************************************************\
********
February 18, 1874
U. S. House of Representatives, 43rd Congress, 1st Session
February 18, 1874
Report No. 143: Acknowledgment of God And The Christian Religion
in The Constitution
Mr. Benjamin F. Butler, from the Committee on the Judiciary,
submitted the following
REPORT
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the petition
of E. G. Gould and others, asking Congress for "an acknowledgment of
Almighty God and the Christian religion" in the Constitution of the
United States, having considered the matter referred to them,
respectfully pray leave to report:
That, upon examination even of the meager debates by the fathers
of the Republic in the convention which framed the Constitution, they
find that the subject of this memorial was most fully and carefully
considered, and then, in that convention, decided after grave
deliberation, to which the subject was entitled, that, as this
country, the foundation of whose government they were then laying, was
to be the home of the oppressed of all nations of the earth, whether
Christian or Pagan, and in full realization of the dangers which the
union between church and state had imposed upon so many nations of the
Old World, with great unanimity that it was inexpedient to put
anything into the Constitution or frame of government which might be
construed to be a reference to any religious creed or doctrine.
And they further find that this decision was accepted by our
Christian fathers with such great unanimity that in the amendments
which were afterward proposed, in order to make the Constitution more
acceptable to the nation, none has ever been proposed to the States by
which this wise determination of the fathers has been attempted to be
changed. Wherefore, your committee report that it is inexpedient to
legislate upon the subject of the above memorial, and ask that they be
discharged from the further consideration thereof, and that this
report, together with the petition, be laid upon the table.
Source of Information
http://www.vwc.edu/academic_life/csrf/articles/christian_amendment.htm
********************************************************************************\
***********
September 14, 1879
Total separation of church and state, to be guaranteed by
amendment of the national Constitution; including the equitable
taxation of church property, secularization of the public schools,
abrogation of Sabbatarian laws, abolition of chaplaincies, prohibition
of public appropriations for religious purposes, and all measures
necessary to the same general end.
National protection for national citizens in their equal civil,
political, and religious rights, to be guaranteed by amendment of the
United States Constitution and afforded through the United States Court.
Source of Information National Liberal Platform Adopted at
Cincinnati, September 14, 1879. American State Papers Bearing On
Sunday Legislation, Revised and Enlarged Edition, Compiled and
Annotated by William Addison Blakely, Revised Edition Edited by
Willard Allen Colcord, The Religious Liberty Association, Washington
D.C. 1911, pp 170.
********************************************************************************\
*******
1888
"Secular power has proved a satanic gift to the church, and
ecclesiastical power has proved an engine of tyranny in the hands of
the state."
Source of Information Dr.. Philip Schaff Church and State in the
United States (1888), p. 11. American State Papers on Freedom in
Religion. 4th Revised Edition. Published in 1949 for The Religious
Liberty Association, Washington, D.C. First Edition Compiled by
William Addison Blakely, of the Chicago Bar. (1890) under the Title
American State Papers Bearing on Sunday Legislation. p. 523.
1888
********************************************************************************\
***********
The historian George Bancroft, in a letter to Philip Schaff,
stated: "Congress from the beginning was as much without the power to
make a law respecting the establishment of religion as it is now that
the amendment has passed."(2)
Source of Information Schaff, Philip, Church and State in the United
States, Papers of the American Historical Society, 1888, p. 137.
1888
[The Constitution] "is neither hostile nor friendly to any
religion; it is simply silent on the subject, as lying beyond the
jurisdiction of the general government."
Source of Information Church and State in the United States: Or, the
American Idea of Religious Liberty and its Practical Effects, with
Official Documents / by Philip Schaff. G. P. Putnam's Sons,New York &
London, 1888, pp. 39-40 [REPRINT] Church and State in the United
States or The American Idea of Religious Liberty and It's Practical
Effects, Philip Schaff, Arno Press, New York Times Company, New York:
(1972) pp. 39-40.
*****************************************************************************
The above is just a small part of what can be propvided and what is found
at
Study Guide: Separation of Church and State - Indepth
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd0.htm
You are way in over your head on this, out of your league.

:|
:| "In matters of religion, I have considered that its free
:| exercise is placed by the constitution independent of the
:| powers of the general government. I have therefore
:| undertaken, on no occasion, to prescribe the religious
:| exercises suited to it; but have left them, as the
:| constitution found them, under the direction and discipline
:| of state or church authorities acknowledged by the several
:| religious societies." - Second Inaugural Address.
:|
:| On June 12, 1823, Thomas Jefferson wrote to Supreme Court Justice
:|William Johnson "On every question of construction, carry ourselves back
:|to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit
:|manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be
:|squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable
:|one in which it was passed."
:|
:|http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden/inaug/wash1.htm
:|First Inaugural Address of George Washington
:| Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public
:|summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper
:|to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that
:|Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils
:|of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect,
:|that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the
:|people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for
:|these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its
:|administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his
:|charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and
:|private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less
:|than my own, nor those of my fellow- citizens at large less than either.
:|No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which
:|conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every
:|step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation
:|seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency; and
:|in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their
:|united government the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so
:|many distinct communities from which the event has resulted can not be
:|compared with the means by which most governments have been established
:|without some return of pious gratitude, along with an humble anticipation
:|of the future blessings which the past seem to presage. These reflections,
:|arising out of the present crisis, have forced themselves too strongly on
:|my mind to be suppressed. You will join with me, I trust, in thinking that
:|there are none under the influence of which the proceedings of a new and
:|free government can more auspiciously commence.
:|
:|http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=116
:|"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were
:|the general principles of Christianity."

WALLBUILDERS!!!!!!!!!
David Barton!!!!!!!!
HEHEHEHEHE
The Barton Chronicles
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/bartchro.htm

:|
:|Article III of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787:
:| Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and
:|the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever
:|be encouraged. The utmost good faith shall always be observed towards the
:|Indians; their lands and property shall never be taken from them without
:|their consent; and, in their property, rights, and liberty, they shall
:|never be invaded or disturbed, unless in just and lawful wars authorized
:|by Congress; but laws founded in justice and humanity, shall from time to
:|time be made for preventing wrongs being done to them, and for preserving
:|peace and friendship with them.
:|http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/nworder.htm
:|

The Northwest Ordinance (1787-89
The Northwest Ordinance
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/nwo1.htm

:| Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested
:|me " to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public
:|thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful
:|hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording
:|them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their
:|safety and happiness: " - George Washington - Thanksgiving Proclamation
:|http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden/proclamations/gwproc01.htm
:|

Washington wasn't a orthodox Christian, in fact wasn't especially religious
at all

Ho hum
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's set the record straight on the matter of Jefferson attending church,
church services held in Congress, Jefferson's conversion to Christianity,
etc.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.education/msg/a58f8cdd7e49aaae?hl=en

:|There were state laws against obscenity, blasphemy, doing business on
:|Sunday (even the Constitution explicitly recognizes the Christian
:|Sabbath).

Congress met on Sunday at times, Mail was delivered and post offices open
on Sunday
* Sunday (Sabbath) arguments and Clashes (1810-1835)
o Genealogy of Sunday Laws
http://candst.tripod.com/geneal.html
o The Sunday Mail argument (1810-1830)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/sundays3.htm
A Simple Test
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/simptest.htm

:|The Bible was the primary book used in schools.

In some, maybe, not in all by any stretch of the imagination.
Thomas Jefferson supported Bible reading in school; this is proven
by his service as the first president of the Washington, D.C. public
schools, which used the Bible and Watt's Hymns as textbooks for reading.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/arg6.htm
Another Jefferson Quote Debunked
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/jefschl1.htm
Jefferson, Religion, and the Public Schools.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/jeffschl.htm
Fisher Ames was lamenting the decline of the use of the
Bible in schools and this was 1801. When he wrote this:
"Should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a schoolbook? Its
morals are pure, its examples are captivating and noble .... "
Think about that, the Bible was being
phased out as a school book in Mass. a state with an established religion
as early as 1801.
Jefferson designed a educational system for the lower grades that did not
include religion being taught in any form or fashion.
Fisher Ames wrote
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCHOOL BOOKS
The Palladium, JANUARY, 27, 1801
IT HAS BEEN THE CUSTOM, of late years, to put a number of little books into
the hands of children, containing fables and moral lessons. This is very
well, because it is right first to raise curiosity, and then to guide it.
Many books for children are, however, judiciously compiled; the language is
too much raised above the ideas of that tender age; the moral is drawn from
the fable, they know not why; and when they gain wisdom from experience,
they will see the restrictions and exceptions which are necessary to the
rules of conduct laid down in their books, but which such books do not
give. Some of the most admired works of this kind abound with a frothy sort
of sentiment, as the readers of novels are pleased to call it, the chief
merit of which consists in shedding tears, and giving away money. Is it
right, or agreeable to good sense, to try to make the tender age more
tender'' Pity and generosity, though amiable impulses, are blind ones, and
as we grow older are to be managed by rules, and restrained by wisdom.
It is not clear that the heart, at thirty, is any the softer for weeping,
at ten, over one of Berquin's fables, the point of which turns on a beggar
boy's being ragged, and a rich man's son being well clad. Some persons,
indeed, appear to have shed all their tears of sympathy before they reach
the period of mature age. Most young hearts are tender, and tender enough;
the object of education is rather to direct these emotions, however
amiable, than to augment them.(2)
Why then, if these books for children must be retained, as they will be,
should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a school book? Its
morals are pure, its examples captivating and noble. The reverence for the
sacred book that is thus early impressed lasts long; and probably, if not
impressed in infancy, never takes firm hold of the mind. One consideration
more is important. In no book is there so good English, so pure and so
elegant; and by teaching all the same book, they will speak alike, and the
Bible will justly remain the standard of language as well as of faith. A
barbarous provincial jargon will be banished, and taste, corrupted by
pompous Johnsonian affectation, will be restored.
FOOTNOTE
(2) Probably Amaud Berquin, (ca.) 1749-1791 . The Looking Glass for
the Mind ... Stories and Tales Chiefly translated from L'Ami des
Enfants.
SOURCE OF INFORMATION:
Works of Fisher Ames, by Seth Ames. Volume 1, Edited and enlarged by W.B.
Allen, Liberty Classics, (1983) pp 11-12
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above shows an apparent decline of the use of the Bible in schools in
even in Mass.
Jefferson created the first secular University on the soil of this nation
and after his death Madison kept it that way.

Lose?
Chuckle
come back again after you have acutally studied history
***********************************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and the discussion group for the above site listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
This site is a member of the following web rings:
Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
American History WebRing--&--The History Ring
Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring
Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring
****************************************************************
.

User: ""
Title: Re: SENATE SHOULD CONTINUE GIVING UP OR DOWN VOTES ON PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEES	16 Jun 2005 07:54:08 AM

"Unpleasant Truth" <no.one@nowhere.com> wrote:

:|
:|<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
:|news:3301b198o88efk54etn7f0g1p76kor5aid@4ax.com...
:|>

(Info Junkie) wrote:
:|> >:|
:|> >:|ROTFLMHO.
:|>
:|> Ahhhhh you famous ot infamous discourse.
:|> How quaint, however, it is your speed
:|>
:|>
:|> You are invited to check out the following:
:|> {an offer which you, of course, would never accept, you might get
:|> embarrassed]
:|>
:|> The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
:|> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
:|
:|Definitely recommended reading. Right up there with such other fantasies
:|as
:|

You are only showing your biases, prejudices and ignorance.
It actually is highly recommended reading by a good number of people:
Authors, teachers, lawyers, at least one federal appeals court judge found
it a good site.
It gets a fair number of hits from US Senate and US House of Rep as well
as U S Gov. even US military email addys, Now granted since the program
doesn't tack or record what comes in front of a @ in a email address, only
what comes afterwards, it could be janitors in those places, but the odds
are that isn't the case.
Then there is a number of state govt email addys that show up.
Universities, etc.
So, there is a very large number of people far more knowledgable than you
that din't share your prejudiced, biased, jealous, ignorant view of the
web site that like the web site use the site and recommend it to others .
After all it wouldn't have had 865,626 visits or 1,817,059 page views if
people didn't find it useful.
I notice you don't take the offer and appear on this site either
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
You would be quickly exposed fot what and who you are if you did.
You are invited to check out the following:
{an offer which you, of course, would never accept, you might get
embarrassed]
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and the discussion group for the above site listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
This site is a member of the following web rings:
Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
American History WebRing--&--The History Ring
Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring
Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring
****************************************************************
.

User: "Info Junkie"
Title: Re: SENATE SHOULD CONTINUE GIVING UP OR DOWN VOTES ON PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEES	16 Jun 2005 10:54:55 PM

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 15:24:25 -0400,

wrote:

bondrock@ifx.net (Info Junkie) wrote:

:|
:|ROTFLMHO.

Ahhhhh you famous ot infamous discourse.

Thank you.

How quaint, however, it is your speed

I'm glad to have amused you Mr buckeye (alias jalison).

You are invited to check out the foll