Sep. C S no longer law of the land in America

Religions > Atheism > Sep. C S no longer law of the land in America

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 1

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"buckeye"
Date:	23 Jan 2008 05:19:53 AM
Object:	Sep. C S no longer law of the land in America

" separation of church and state is no longer the law of the land in
America"
Law Professor Gets Religion Award
http://www.emorywheel.com/detail.php?n=24899
By Mithu Maheswaranathan Posted: 01/21/2008
Emory's John Witte, Jonas Robitscher Professor of Law and director of
the Center for the Study of Law and Religion, received the 2008
National First Freedom Award last week for his contributions to
religious freedom in the United States.
The awards ceremony was held Wednesday in Richmond, Va., by the
Council for America's First Freedom, an organization that seeks to
increase respect for religious freedom in diverse communities.
Previous First Freedom Award recipients include Madeleine Albright and
Tony Blair.
Robert Seiple, president of the Council for First Freedom, wrote in an
e-mail to the Wheel that selecting Witte was an easy decision.
"His scholarship is impeccable, his writing prolific, his insights
profound, and his articulation unique. What's not to like?" Seiple wrote.
Witte was chosen for writings that contributed to the understanding of
religious freedom and for his role at the Center for the Study of Law
and Religion, Seiple added.
After accepting his award, Witte delivered a speech titled
"Superstition of Church and State in America." In the speech, Witte
said that many people believe "separation of church and state" is
written in the Constitution, when in reality, the metaphor was coined
by Thomas Jefferson in 1802.
"This metaphor has held popular imagination so firmly that many have
not noticed that separation of church and state is no longer the law
of the land in America," Witte said.
In an interview, Witte said separation of church and state is
important but is overemphasized, causing people to ignore other
important principles of religious freedom, such as religious
nondiscrimination.
The Supreme Court has recently granted new religious liberties not
previously permitted under "separation." For example, the court has
upheld policies that give religious student groups access to public
classrooms as long as participation is voluntary and non-religious
groups are treated the same way.
Christian prayers and broadcast Bible readings are banned in public
schools because students are required to be there. But Witte said, "it
is quite another thing to ban moments of silence and private religious
speech in these same public schools."
Law Professor Frank Alexander, the founding director of the Center for
the Study of Law and Religion, called Witte a "premier scholar in the
world today on the points of intersection of law and religion."
Witte has been selected 10 times by the students of Emory's Law School
as the Most Outstanding Professor.
"These gifts the students have given me are happy vindications that I
am doing the job I should be doing," Witte said. "I just love doing it
— teaching is my highest calling."
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation
of Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
.. . . 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)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************

.

User: "buckeye"
Title: Re: Sep. C S no longer law of the land in America	27 Jan 2008 02:05:57 PM

"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote:

:|
:|"3921 Dead" <zeppp@finestplanet.com> wrote in message
:|news:efqkp3haada0eia2rhne0oqkph99e8j82v@4ax.com...
:|>
:|> And the language about how "no religious test shall ever be required
:|> for any office or position of public trust under these united States"?
:|
:|
:|
:|But, there IS no religious test for public office.

The topic was
" separation of church and state is no longer the law of the land in
America"

:|
:|You might only vote for a Catholic if one is running, but that is not a
:|religious test, it is merely a selection process you use to choose a
:|candidate you like. I might only vote for a Protestant ...
:|
:|Whom you and I will or will not vote for is not a religious test imposed by
:|government, it is a bit of information we use to select a candidate we like.
:|Perhaps the criteria we put to use is flawed on the most basic of levels,
:|but it is OUR criteria, not a religious test that the Constitution cares
:|about.

Try this on for size
Don't for one minute try and pass off the bull there are no "religious
tests" being employed.
Those running for President are falling all over each other trying to out
Jesus the others.
Someone thinks there are "religious tests" involved
But you are "right" in the sense that the government per se isn't
involved thus legally speaking there is no religious test
Now, would u like to get back to the actual topic
****************************************************************************
"Guard against those men who make a great noise about religion, when
choosing your representatives"
John Leland (1754-1841) was a Baptist preacher whose life involved writing
about and preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ and about the proper
relationship between religion and government. In the latter passion, Leland
agreed with the position of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, both of
whom he knew personally. Leland spent approximately 14 years in Virginia
from 1776 to 1790-91. He was a major leader of the Baptists in Virginia. He
helped Madison by rounding up support for the defeat of the assessment bill
in Virginia in 1784-86, and by supporting the ratification of the new
constitution (only after being assured that Madison did favor the addition
of a bill of rights), He worked to get Madison elected (over Patrick
Henry's hand-picked James Monroe) to the House of Representatives of the
First Federal Congress. He returned to his home state of Massachusetts in
the winter of 1790-91, where he remained an active minister and champion of
separation of church and state and disestablishment till his death in 1841.
He wrote articles against establishment while in Massachusetts and
testified before the Massachusetts legislature on at least one occasion.

Research by Jim Allison
Excerpt from July 4th Oration by John Leland, July 5, 1802.
[emphasis added]
.. . . Disdain mean suspicion, but cherish manly jealousy; be always jealous
of your liberty, your rights. Nip the first bud of intrusion on your
constitution. Be not devoted to men; let measures be your object, and
estimate men according to the measures they pursue. Never promote men who
seek after a state-established religion; it is spiritual tyranny--the worst
of despotism. It is turnpiking the way to heaven by human law, in order to
establish ministerial gates to collect toll. It converts religion into a
principle of state policy, and the gospel into merchandise. Heaven forbids
the bans of marriage between church and state; their embraces therefore,
must be unlawful. Guard against those men who make a great noise about
religion, in choosing representatives. It is electioneering. If they knew
the nature and worth of religion, they would not debauch it to such
shameful purposes. If pure religion is the criterion to denominate
candidates, those who make a noise about it must be rejected; for their
wrangle about it, proves that they are void of it. Let honesty, talents and
quick despatch, characterise the men of your choice. Such men will have a
sympathy with their constituents, and will be willing to come to the light,
that their deeds may be examined. . . .
Source of Information:
Excerpt from "July 4th Oration by John Leland, July 5, 1802". The Writings
of John Leland, Edited by L.F. Greene, Arno Press & The New York Times New
York (1969) pp.260-270) Originally published as: The Writings Of The Late
Elder John Leland Including Some Events In His Life, Written By Himself,
With Additional Sketches &c. By Miss L.F. Greene, Lanesboro, Mass. Printed
By G.W. Wood, 29 Gold Street, New York 1845.
***********************************************************************************
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation
of Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
.. . . 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)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************

.

User: "buckeye"
Title: Re: Sep. C S no longer law of the land in America	27 Jan 2008 02:03:09 PM

3921 Dead <zeppp@finestplanet.com> wrote:

Here is a good explantaion by that by an attorney (ooops judge now) and
co-owner with me of of The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Chruch
And State website
Some Thoughts on Religion and Law
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/bthot-lr.htm
Some Thoughts on Religion and Law

Written by Susan Batte
1. The Constitution did not provide any mechanism for the establishment
of religion or for the support of religion.
2. Religious tests were the primary mechanism for perpetuating an
established church within the political structure.
3. The Constitution specifically prohibits religious tests or oaths for
office.
THEREFORE, the Constitution created the concept of Separation of Church and
State by providing nothing in the constitution that supports the idea that
Government as Government is allowed to support any religion for any reason
and by specifically prohibiting the primary political mechanism for
supporting religion.
The 1st Amendment may only be interpreted, as being consistent with the
Constitution and the views expressed in the Constitution concerning
religion because:
1. The 1st Amendment was drafted after the Constitution was ratified and
was not designated as repealing any provision in the Constitution.
2. The 1st Amendment does not provide any mechanism for establishing
religion.
3. The 1st Amendment does provide the mechanism to allow an individual
as an individual and not as government to exercise the religion of his or
her choice.
THEREFORE, the 1st Amendment cannot be interpreted to mean that some
governmental entities may support religion in some ways (i.e., vouchers,
welfare programs, etc.).
Once the 1st Amendment prohibited Congress from establishing religion by
prohibiting it from making any law respecting an establishment of religion
- Congress was thereby precluded from passing any kind of appropriation
bill to fund any religious enterprise.
In order for the above to be true, the interpretation of "establishment"
would have to be broad, and in fact the broad interpretation of
"establishment" is supported. First, the O.E.D. (Oxford English Dictionary)
sets out a 1561 definition of establishment as "a means of establishing;
something that strengthens, supports or corroborates. Into the 1700s -
1800s, "establishment" could be defined as "the establishing by law (a
church, religion, form of worship.) As an example, the O.E.D. sets out the
following: 1886 Earl Selborne De Ch. Eng. I. iv. 77 All such relations of
the Church to the State as those which are summed up in the term
'Establishment'.
Second, a broad interpretation of"establishment" is consistent with the
indefinite article that proceeds it. "An"'establishment of religion' refers
to all or any religious establishment --- not to one or some
establishments. In the absence of definiteness, the inclusion of "of one
Christian sect over another" after "Congress shall make no law respecting
an establishment" would be necessary if, as Mr. Barton argues, the 1st
Amendment was all about stamping out competing rivalries between Christian
sects.
In addition, the operative word in the Establishment Clause is RESPECTING.
Respecting an establishment of religion. Any religious institution, be it a
20 member country church or a huge multimillion member international
religion, is an establishment of religion. The government is forbidden from
making any laws, positive or negative that would pertain to an
establishment of religion.
The narrow definition of establishment is that the 1st Amendment meant only
to prevent a "State Church" from being officially sanctioned by the
Government. (In this way, some people have tried to argue that supporting
religious schools doesn't establish anything.) However, such a narrow
reading of "Establishment" would need specific language added to the
Amendment to support it since a plain language reading of the Constitution
clearly shows no bias for (or against) Christianity as opposed to any other
religion or even irreligion. And neither does the 1st Amendment.
I would be remiss if I did not point out that the 10th Amendment is not
implicated in the matter of funding religious schools. The 14th amendment
applies the establishment clause against states
Of free exercise cases involving a religious test there have been two
notable cases to reach the Supreme Court: Torcaso v. Watkins (notary public
refused to take religious oath for office) and McDaniel v. Paty
(Disqualification for elected office sought for ordained Baptist minister).
In both cases, the Court found a violation of the Free Exercise of Religion
Clause.
In other cases, an individual has been forced to choose between receiving
government benefits or religious conviction. Though these cases have not
included a specific religious test, the Court has used a similar type of
analysis as used in the two cases mentioned above. The Court usually has
attempted to decide whether there is a sufficient compelling state interest
or undue administrative burden to justify the infringement of an
individual's liberty interest (free exercise of religion).
Goldman v. Weinberger (Air Force regulation forbidding the wearing of head
coverings is upheld - Jewish officer is not allowed to wear yarmulke
indoors. Compelling state interest is to allow the military wide discretion
establishing regulations because discipline is essential to military life.)
Bowen v. Roy (Native American denied welfare benefits because he refused to
have youngest child assigned a social security number - compelling state
interest was to prevent welfare fraud).
O'Lone v. State of Shabazz (Muslim Prisoner not allowed to be excused to
participate in religious ritual - compelling state interest - efficient
administration of prison in that other prisoners may interpret prison's
actions in releasing prisoners from detail as an endorsement of the Muslim
religion.)
Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Association. (Forest service allowed to
build road through sacred Indian ground used for religious ritual - Instead
of using the compelling state interest test, the court implied since the
native American were not coerced by the government into not practicing
their religious as a result of the road being built, then their free
exercise of religion had not been violated.
The argument that taxes for public schools is a religious test denying
parents of school-age children from seeking education at a religious
school. The compelling state interest in continuing to tax individuals is
to continue to provide free public education to all children. Not just
parents are taxed, but all individuals who own property or in some cases
receiving a certain income and above, as well as business and corporations
are required to pay the tax.
Until the government abandons its interest in providing for education, it
would be difficult to prove that any taxes that were used for public
education constitutes a religious test. In addition, you'll note in the
above cases, that for the most part, the Court is willing to find that an
individual's free exercise of religion is not violated if the individual
can continue to practice their religion in light of the government-imposed
rule, regulation or in this case tax.
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation
of Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
.. . . 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)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************

.

User: "buckeye"
Title: Re: Sep. C S no longer law of the land in America	27 Jan 2008 01:56:24 PM

3932 Dead <zepp22113932@finestplanet.com> wrote:

:|On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 21:03:57 -0500, Josh Rosenbluth
:|<jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
:|
:|>3932 Dead wrote:
:|>
:|>> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 00:51:13 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
:|>> <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote:
:|>>
:|>>
:|>>>"3921 Dead" <zeppp@finestplanet.com> wrote in message
:|>>>news:efqkp3haada0eia2rhne0oqkph99e8j82v@4ax.com...
:|>>>
:|>>>>And the language about how "no religious test shall ever be required
:|>>>>for any office or position of public trust under these united States"?
:|>>>
:|>>>
:|>>>
:|>>>But, there IS no religious test for public office.
:|>>
:|>>
:|>> Very good. So how can government involve itself in religious affairs
:|>> when they are forbidden from inquiring into the religious beliefs of
:|>> any of their constituent members or employees?
:|>
:|>Because the forbidding of inquiries into the religious beliefs of
:|>employees has no logical impact on "involvement in religious affairs".
:|>Whether a particular involvement is Constitutional depends on the
:|>Establishment clause, not the Religious Test clause.
:|
:|Of course it does. How can you have any agent of the government
:|involve in religious activity in his official function if you are not
:|allowed to even ask what his religion is?
:|>

Other than I guess Chaplains (which is another whole matter altogether)
what agent of the government should be involved in religious activity to
begin with?
At least "official" religious activity.
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation
of Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
.. . . 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)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************

.

User: "3932 Dead"
Title: Re: Sep. C S no longer law of the land in America	27 Jan 2008 02:55:46 PM

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 14:56:24 -0500, buckeye <buckeyeelo@nospam.net>
wrote:

3932 Dead <zepp22113932@finestplanet.com> wrote:

Other than I guess Chaplains (which is another whole matter altogether)
what agent of the government should be involved in religious activity to
begin with?

None. Are you somehow under the impression that I was arguing in
favor of state and church entanglement? Quite the opposite: we are in
agreement.

At least "official" religious activity.

***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:

The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm

American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm

The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation
of Church and State in general, listed below]

HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/

***************************************************************
. . . 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)
. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote

"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"

That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.

It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.

*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************

--
What do you call a Republican with a conscience?
An ex-Republican.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827 (From Yang, AthD (h.c)
"I simply can not believe this is what the Republican party has
become. I just can’t. It just makes me sick to think all those years
of supporting this party, and this is what it has become. Even if you
don’t like the S-Chip expansion, it is hard to deny what Republicans
are- a bunch of bitter, nasty, petty, snarling, sneering, vicious
thugs, peering through people’s windows so they can make fun of their
misfortune.
I’m registering Independent tomorrow."
Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
Zepps_News-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essays-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
.

User: "buckeye"
Title: Re: Sep. C S no longer law of the land in America	27 Jan 2008 01:53:58 PM

3932 Dead <zepp22113932@finestplanet.com> wrote:

:|On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 00:51:13 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
:|<crwlr@verizon.net> wrote:
:|
:|>
:|>"3921 Dead" <zeppp@finestplanet.com> wrote in message
:|>news:efqkp3haada0eia2rhne0oqkph99e8j82v@4ax.com...
:|>>
:|>> And the language about how "no religious test shall ever be required
:|>> for any office or position of public trust under these united States"?
:|>
:|>
:|>
:|>But, there IS no religious test for public office.
:|
:|Very good. So how can government involve itself in religious affairs
:|when they are forbidden from inquiring into the religious beliefs of
:|any of their constituent members or employees?
:|>

Why would the government have a right to inquire into the religious
beliefs of any of it's employees?
James Madison felt this was about just a census:
Madison didn't even want to count ministers and priests in the census
because he felt it conflicted with the seperation of church and state.
__________________________________________________________
FEBRUARY 2, 1790
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Madison's interest in preserving the separation between Church and State
led, as we shall see later, to his having some misgivings regarding Federal
Thanksgiving Day proclamations.(294) It also led to 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 ot 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)
Here, as in the case of the Thanksgiving Day proclamations, he had some
question as to the advisability of including a reference to ministers of
religion in the census because of his strong belief in the entire
separation of Church and State. He was no extremist in such matters if the
fundamental principles of separation were observed, and his sense of what
was fitting led him to see that the arguments in favor of both actions
probably outweighed those against them. The case of chaplaincies to be
supported from public funds seemed to him more serious and he opposed their
appointment.
His reasons were stated at some length in an essay on the subject first
printed only a generation ago. He asked the question, "is the appointment
of chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the
Constitution, and with the pure prinsiple of religious freedom)" Madison
made it clear that his opposition to the chaplaincy, whether in Congress or
in the Army and Navy, was not to having services for these groups but to
their being conducted as a function of government and paid for by public
funds.
Similarly, he opposed the incorporation by the Federal government of
religious institutions, believing that such action would tend to break down
the "wall of separation" between Church and State. He sent special messages
to Congress vetoing proposals for incorporating the Episcopal Church in
Georgetown near Washington, and also for setting apart land in Mississippi
territory for a Baptist congregation.(297)
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: CHURCH AND STATE IN THE UNITED STATES VOLUME I Anson
Phelps Stokes pages 346-347 Haper & Brothers New York, (1950)
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation
of Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
.. . . 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)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************

.

User: "3932 Dead"
Title: Re: Sep. C S no longer law of the land in America	27 Jan 2008 02:51:53 PM

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 14:53:58 -0500, buckeye <buckeyeelo@nospam.net>
wrote:

3932 Dead <zepp22113932@finestplanet.com> wrote:

Why would the government have a right to inquire into the religious
beliefs of any of it's employees?

It doesn't. Period.
I normally agree with Madison, but I think not counting priests and
other shamans in the census is overkill. There are, after all,
accorded as individuals all the rights and priviledges of anyone else
living in the jurisdiction of the constitution and thus, as
individuals, should be counted.
The country has (so far) managed to avoid the horrific mistake it made
with corporations, and not yet granted the rights of personhood to
churches. May it stay that way.

James Madison felt this was about just a census:

Madison didn't even want to count ministers and priests in the census
because he felt it conflicted with the seperation of church and state.
__________________________________________________________
FEBRUARY 2, 1790
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Madison's interest in preserving the separation between Church and State
led, as we shall see later, to his having some misgivings regarding Federal
Thanksgiving Day proclamations.(294) It also led to 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 ot 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)

Here, as in the case of the Thanksgiving Day proclamations, he had some
question as to the advisability of including a reference to ministers of
religion in the census because of his strong belief in the entire
separation of Church and State. He was no extremist in such matters if the
fundamental principles of separation were observed, and his sense of what
was fitting led him to see that the arguments in favor of both actions
probably outweighed those against them. The case of chaplaincies to be
supported from public funds seemed to him more serious and he opposed their
appointment.

His reasons were stated at some length in an essay on the subject first
printed only a generation ago. He asked the question, "is the appointment
of chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the
Constitution, and with the pure prinsiple of religious freedom)" Madison
made it clear that his opposition to the chaplaincy, whether in Congress or
in the Army and Navy, was not to having services for these groups but to
their being conducted as a function of government and paid for by public
funds.

Similarly, he opposed the incorporation by the Federal government of
religious institutions, believing that such action would tend to break down
the "wall of separation" between Church and State. He sent special messages
to Congress vetoing proposals for incorporating the Episcopal Church in
Georgetown near Washington, and also for setting apart land in Mississippi
territory for a Baptist congregation.(297)
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: CHURCH AND STATE IN THE UNITED STATES VOLUME I Anson
Phelps Stokes pages 346-347 Haper & Brothers New York, (1950)

***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:

The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm

American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm

The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation
of Church and State in general, listed below]

HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/

***************************************************************
. . . 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)
. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote

"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"

That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.

It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.

*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************

User: "buckeye"
Title: Re: Sep. C S no longer law of the land in America	27 Jan 2008 01:52:13 PM

wrote:

:|Then why did David Dobson (focus on your family

You are confused.
Dr James Dobson, Focus on the Family.

:|who literally controlled the GOP party platform committe
:|insist that any/all republican candidates accept/adhere
:|to a number of religious inspired tenets before they
:|would be accepted (and get money)?

Do you have any valid cites for the above?
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation
of Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
.. . . 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)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************

.

User: "buckeye"
Title: Re: Sep. C S no longer law of the land in America	27 Jan 2008 10:42:42 AM

Billy <""Bob\"@Billy.Joe Bob's"> wrote:

Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ordinary or extraordinary claims require ordinary or extraordinary proof.
If you're going to claim something and especially something outlandish
you're going to need some pretty extraordinary and/or irrefutable proof to
back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's the ordinary or
extraordinary proof for their ordinary or extraordinary claims? If one is
not responding with ordinary or extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the
claim is not worth considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ as Homer@nospam said]
Why is asking for "proof" considered truculence? Do you consider it
truculence for a judge to ask for evidence in a trial. Would you rather
that
people just testified that they believed in the guilt of the suspect?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[as Gray Shockley said:]
Your "opinion" is not an adequate citation.
You forgot your citations.
Or, are your opinions more valid than facts?
You do realize, do you not?, that opinion without substantiation is just
propaganda for those without critical thinking abilities and originate with
those who are attempting to manipulate rather than those who are attempting
to clarify.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
.

User: "buckeye"
Title: Re: Sep. C S no longer law of the land in America	27 Jan 2008 01:57:00 PM

Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:

:|Because the forbidding of inquiries into the religious beliefs of
:|employees has no logical impact on "involvement in religious affairs".

Is there really a valid reason to even inquire?
There have been stories IIRC fairly recent were some govt employees,
(members of the military) have singled out those who somehow were known to
be atheists for "special attention."

:|Whether a particular involvement is Constitutional depends on the
:|Establishment clause, not the Religious Test clause.

For General Information:
The Religious Test Clause was Separation Clause:
The Religiouis Clauses of the 1st Amendment only reinforced that
separation.
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation
of Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
.. . . 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)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************

.

User: "Josh Rosenbluth"
Title: Re: Sep. C S no longer law of the land in America	27 Jan 2008 05:06:35 PM

buckeye wrote:

For General Information:
The Religious Test Clause was Separation Clause:

The Religiouis Clauses of the 1st Amendment only reinforced that
separation.

Citations?
Josh Rosenbluth
.

User: "buckeye"
Title: Re: Sep. C S no longer law of the land in America	27 Jan 2008 02:04:01 PM

Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:

:|For example as an employee of the Bush Administration, I might work on
:|the budget for a faith-based initiative.

On yes Faith-based Initiate. LOL (now that is another story too)
For a nation that prides itself on a Constitutional Principle of Separation
of Church and State isn' that so odd to have office of Faith-based
Initiatives?
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation
of Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
.. . . 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)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************

.

Page 1 of 1

Post reply

Re: Sep. C S no longer law of the land in America
Christ "The Magic Man/bushite killer" Begs America - 'I'd like to seeAmericans enforce the law of the land, and advocate the public execution ofthose responsible for torture ' - BOMBSHELL 'How Bush Misled the World' -
Re: AMERICA IS THE LAND OF OPPORTUNITY
Re: AMERICA IS THE LAND OF OPPORTUNITY
Re: AMERICA IS THE LAND OF OPPORTUNITY
Homeless in Paradise America, Land of 371 Billionaires
Home schooling helps make America the land of idiots
Re: AMERICA IS THE LAND OF OPPORTUNITY

LAND OF THE *FREE*
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?OT:_Hollywood's_Land_of_the_Rising_Clich=E9?=
OT: Of Gringos and Old Grudges: This Land Is Their Land
OT: Two peoples and a single land
OT: A Philippine Movie Star Hopes to Land a New Role: President
OT: Festivals of Certitude in Land of Red and Blue
OT: Where the Land Is a Tinderbox, the Killing Is a Frenzy

NEWER

pg.3585 pg.2749 pg.2106 pg.1612 pg.1232 pg.940 pg.716 pg.544 pg.412 pg.311 pg.234 pg.175 pg.130 pg.96 pg.70 pg.50 pg.35 pg.24 pg.16 pg.10 pg.6 pg.3 pg.1

OLDER