| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
21 Apr 2007 06:52:28 AM |
| Object: |
Separation of Church and State |
Separation of Church and State
Separation of Church and State
http://www.carthagepress.com/articles/2007/04/18/news/11%20howerton.txt
[excerpt]
By Dallie Miessner Howerton, Press Columnist
Published: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 3:38 PM CDT
E-mail this story | Print this page
This past Friday, April 13, was the birthday of Thomas Jefferson. One
of the most outspoken of the Founding Fathers on "Freedom of Religion"
and the importance of the "Separation of Church and State."
This past week, as the result of Attorneygate, Monica Goodling, senior
counsel to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and White House liaison,
was thrust into the spotlight when she resigned and told Congress that
she would take the Fifth Amendment rather than testify under oath.
Monica Goodling's involvement in Attorneygate is not the only aspect
of her role in the Bush administration that bears examination. The
mainstream press suddenly discovered that Pat Robertson's Regent
University exists. Not only that, the press learned that it has made a
deep footprint in George W. Bush's Washington, with 150 graduates of
Regent serving in the Bush administration.
*
When the Bush administration came into power, it looked to Regent for
a reliable pool of well-groomed Republican ideologues eager to wage
the culture war from the inside. The former dean of Regent's Robertson
School of Government, Kay Coles James, was promptly installed as the
Director of the Office of Personnel Management.
"The infiltration of the federal government by large numbers of people
seeking to impose a religious agenda - which is very different from
simply being people of faith - is one of the most important stories of
the last six years," said Paul Krugman of the New York Times. An
agenda that would remove the "wall of separation between church and
state."
Over this past six years we have repeatedly heard claims that the
United States is a Christian nation, founded on Christian values and
principles.
I thought this might be a good time to review what one of the most
prominent Founding Fathers had to say on the subject:
[end excerpt]
***************************************************************
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: "Blazing Laser" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of Church and State |
21 Apr 2007 12:14:11 PM |
|
|
Jefferson is on record as advocating 'a wall of separation between
church and state', but people today, especially Christians, don't seem
to realize that he made this promise to -religious- people, not
atheists. Jefferson was afraid that religion mixing with politics
would corrupt not the government but the church. And if you open your
eyes and look around you, you'll see that that's exactly what's
happening today, with the erosion of the wall between church and state
that's gone on so far.
The fundamentalist Christian church has become a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the GOP. Crooked religious leaders have sold out to the
party for their own self-aggranidzement. Christians who profess to
believe in principles morality are completely blind to the corruption
and criminality of the GOP because these corrupt leaders tell them
it's no less than their Christian duty to vote Republican. And anyone
who fights to keep religion out of courtrooms or public schools (like
the ACLU) is unfairly bashed as being anti-Christian.
This is a textbook case of a 'Faustian bargain'. By believing
uncritically, and by being taught that getting what you want is more
important than principles, Christians have sold out to the Devil
himself.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Codebreaker" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of Church and State |
21 Apr 2007 12:26:51 PM |
|
|
On Apr 21, 1:14 pm, Blazing Laser wrote:
Jefferson is on record as advocating 'a wall of separation between
church and state', but people today, especially Christians, don't seem
to realize that he made this promise to -religious- people, not
atheists. Jefferson was afraid that religion mixing with politics
would corrupt not the government but the church. And if you open your
eyes and look around you, you'll see that that's exactly what's
happening today, with the erosion of the wall between church and state
that's gone on so far.
The fundamentalist Christian church has become a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the GOP. Crooked religious leaders have sold out to the
party for their own self-aggranidzement. Christians who profess to
believe in principles morality are completely blind to the corruption
and criminality of the GOP because these corrupt leaders tell them
it's no less than their Christian duty to vote Republican. And anyone
who fights to keep religion out of courtrooms or public schools (like
the ACLU) is unfairly bashed as being anti-Christian.
This is a textbook case of a 'Faustian bargain'. By believing
uncritically, and by being taught that getting what you want is more
important than principles, Christians have sold out to the Devil
himself.
If you don't like it, go and drink from the SEA.
.
|
|
|
| User: "birdog" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of Church and State |
22 Apr 2007 09:56:10 AM |
|
|
"Codebreaker" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:1177176411.673991.152330@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 21, 1:14 pm, Blazing Laser wrote:
Jefferson is on record as advocating 'a wall of separation between
church and state', but people today, especially Christians, don't seem
to realize that he made this promise to -religious- people, not
atheists. Jefferson was afraid that religion mixing with politics
would corrupt not the government but the church. And if you open your
eyes and look around you, you'll see that that's exactly what's
happening today, with the erosion of the wall between church and state
that's gone on so far.
The fundamentalist Christian church has become a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the GOP. Crooked religious leaders have sold out to the
party for their own self-aggranidzement. Christians who profess to
believe in principles morality are completely blind to the corruption
and criminality of the GOP because these corrupt leaders tell them
it's no less than their Christian duty to vote Republican. And anyone
who fights to keep religion out of courtrooms or public schools (like
the ACLU) is unfairly bashed as being anti-Christian.
This is a textbook case of a 'Faustian bargain'. By believing
uncritically, and by being taught that getting what you want is more
important than principles, Christians have sold out to the Devil
himself.
If you don't like it, go and drink from the SEA.
Constitutionally, there AIN'T no "separation of church and state".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greywolf" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of Church and State |
22 Apr 2007 11:35:12 AM |
|
|
"birdog" <birdog@aol.com> wrote in message
news:LHKWh.32515$254.5631@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
"Codebreaker" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:1177176411.673991.152330@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 21, 1:14 pm, Blazing Laser wrote:
Jefferson is on record as advocating 'a wall of separation between
church and state', but people today, especially Christians, don't seem
to realize that he made this promise to -religious- people, not
atheists. Jefferson was afraid that religion mixing with politics
would corrupt not the government but the church. And if you open your
eyes and look around you, you'll see that that's exactly what's
happening today, with the erosion of the wall between church and state
that's gone on so far.
The fundamentalist Christian church has become a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the GOP. Crooked religious leaders have sold out to the
party for their own self-aggranidzement. Christians who profess to
believe in principles morality are completely blind to the corruption
and criminality of the GOP because these corrupt leaders tell them
it's no less than their Christian duty to vote Republican. And anyone
who fights to keep religion out of courtrooms or public schools (like
the ACLU) is unfairly bashed as being anti-Christian.
This is a textbook case of a 'Faustian bargain'. By believing
uncritically, and by being taught that getting what you want is more
important than principles, Christians have sold out to the Devil
himself.
If you don't like it, go and drink from the SEA.
Constitutionally, there AIN'T no "separation of church and state".
Looking at the whole 'wall of separation' issue it total. It comes down to
this: Presently there is a serious attempt to turn this beloved country of
ours into a theocracy. It's a treasonous attempt. Yes, 'treasonous'. The
founding fathers saw the wisdom of keeping church and state separate. They,
no doubt, envisioned something akin to what is going on today by religious
extremists. *Treasonous* extremists, I might add. That's why they refused to
officially pronounce our nation a 'Christian' one; and why they left it up
to the individual to choose what they wanted to believe -- or not believe.
Smart men, were they. Very smart.
How does a 'God' who doesn't even *exist* 'rule' over a nation? Just how
does his imaginary self do that? Be guided by a 'Holy' book which fallible
humans and not his sorry non-existent self composed; the 'original'
autographs which, by the by, are just as non-existent as 'God' is himself?
Is *that* what we should have 'guiding' the affairs of our citizens? And
would the religious zealots be content to elect a 'President' who believed
in a 'liberal' interpretation of the bible, or insist on one who holds each
and every word (excepting comparatively rare instances) of the bible to be
'literal' 'truth'? How goofy can you get?
What we have are religious zealots acting like those Jews who feel that
'God' *gave* them what we today call 'Palestine'. If so, why did the
Israelites have to murder, slaughter, rape and pillage to *get* their 'gift'
from 'God'? Doesn't sound like much of a 'gift' to me. Does it to *you*? It
appears like your everyday 'conquest' instead of a promised 'gift' from
alleged creator of the universe to *me*.
So those who feel the obsessive, unrelenting urge to 'Reclaim America for
Christ', remember this: The 1st-century itinerant Jewish preacher known as
'Jesus of Nazareth' *never* 'owned' it.
Remember this word: 'Treason'.
Greywolf
.
|
|
|
| User: "wjyoung" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of Church and State |
25 Apr 2007 09:59:26 PM |
|
|
Greywolf wrote:
"birdog" <birdog@aol.com> wrote in message
news:LHKWh.32515$254.5631@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
"Codebreaker" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:1177176411.673991.152330@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 21, 1:14 pm, Blazing Laser wrote:
Jefferson is on record as advocating 'a wall of separation between
church and state', but people today, especially Christians, don't seem
to realize that he made this promise to -religious- people, not
atheists. Jefferson was afraid that religion mixing with politics
would corrupt not the government but the church. And if you open your
eyes and look around you, you'll see that that's exactly what's
happening today, with the erosion of the wall between church and state
that's gone on so far.
The fundamentalist Christian church has become a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the GOP. Crooked religious leaders have sold out to the
party for their own self-aggranidzement. Christians who profess to
believe in principles morality are completely blind to the corruption
and criminality of the GOP because these corrupt leaders tell them
it's no less than their Christian duty to vote Republican. And anyone
who fights to keep religion out of courtrooms or public schools (like
the ACLU) is unfairly bashed as being anti-Christian.
This is a textbook case of a 'Faustian bargain'. By believing
uncritically, and by being taught that getting what you want is more
important than principles, Christians have sold out to the Devil
himself.
If you don't like it, go and drink from the SEA.
Constitutionally, there AIN'T no "separation of church and state".
Looking at the whole 'wall of separation' issue it total. It comes down to
this: Presently there is a serious attempt to turn this beloved country of
ours into a theocracy. It's a treasonous attempt. Yes, 'treasonous'. The
founding fathers saw the wisdom of keeping church and state separate.
They agreed to keep the church separate from Congress, not all
governmnet. The First Amendment restricts only the lawmaking power of
Congress and not that of the States. For that matter, "an establishment
of religion" is a reference to those State establishments of religion
that existed at the time of ratification. The First Amendment was meant
to bar Congress from interfering with these State establishments of
religion and with the same words also bars Congress from establishing
religion for all people in all States.
They,
no doubt, envisioned something akin to what is going on today by religious
extremists. *Treasonous* extremists, I might add. That's why they refused to
officially pronounce our nation a 'Christian' one; and why they left it up
to the individual to choose what they wanted to believe -- or not believe.
Smart men, were they. Very smart.
I think many would have objected to the notion of a "nation" at all.
The First Amendment, among other sections, is a testament to the desire
of the founders to create a republic, not a nation. Even still, if they
did declare it a Christian republic it would imply a power to the
central government to somehow enforce it, which, again, is not what they
wanted.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of Church and State |
28 Apr 2007 05:22:29 AM |
|
|
wjyoung <wjyoung@nospam.net> wrote:
:|They agreed to keep the church separate from Congress, not all
:|governmnet. The First Amendment restricts only the lawmaking power of
:|Congress and not that of the States. For that matter, "an establishment
:|of religion" is a reference to those State establishments of religion
:|that existed at the time of ratification. The First Amendment was meant
:|to bar Congress from interfering with these State establishments of
:|religion and with the same words also bars Congress from establishing
:|religion for all people in all States.
The above argument would carry far more weight if and when you documented
your position with primary source documentation.
Until that happens you are just another UseNet Newsgoups poster with
another of many "you say" opinions which means nothing.
The unsubstantiated claims you made above:
They agreed to keep the church separate from Congress, not all
governmnet.
Bob has posted info in the past several times that shows that wasn't true.
Congress was mentioned because that branch was the most powerful at the
time but that was not the only branch of government meant.
In addition to that Madison did offer another article that would have
placed limits on the states, one of the limits dealt with religion. It
passed the House of Representatives, by the required 2/3rds majority. The
House of Representatives, you know, the largest body in Congress. It was
defeated in the Senate, the smallest body in Congress, in secret debate and
by secret vote.
You know the HOR, they represented WE THE PEOPLE the Senate they
represented the interests of the states.
Thus it is inaccurate to say they, meaning the founders who had a say in
this matter. If you wanted to be honest you would have to say a majority of
those in Congress, based on the knwn votes, wanted limits on all branches
of government state an and national
For that matter, "an establishment
:|of religion" is a reference to those State establishments of religion
:|that existed at the time of ratification.
"You say" but provide no documentation to show it is true.
Considering the fact that the historical record is basically bare bones,
totally incomplete, there is absolutely no way you can prove your point.
You can only do that which you do, keep repeating your same position over
and over and over year after year after year.
Maybe someday someone will believe it.
The First Amendment was meant
:|to bar Congress from interfering with these State establishments of
:|religion and with the same words also bars Congress from establishing
:|religion for all people in all States.
"You say" but provide no documentation to show it is true.
You do know of course, don't you, that establishing a religion for all
people in all states was impossible?
If there were truly impossible, there goes half your claim above, huh?
The religious clauses of the BORs was actually to reinforce the church
state separation that was embodied in the unamended constitution.
***************************************************************
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: "Blazing Laser" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of Church and State |
29 Apr 2007 03:16:38 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 06:22:29 -0400, wrote:
wjyoung <wjyoung@nospam.net> wrote:
:|They agreed to keep the church separate from Congress, not all
:|governmnet. The First Amendment restricts only the lawmaking power of
:|Congress and not that of the States. For that matter, "an establishment
:|of religion" is a reference to those State establishments of religion
:|that existed at the time of ratification. The First Amendment was meant
:|to bar Congress from interfering with these State establishments of
:|religion and with the same words also bars Congress from establishing
:|religion for all people in all States.
The above argument would carry far more weight if and when you documented
your position with primary source documentation.
Why? Would that convince you? Of course not.
Until that happens you are just another UseNet Newsgoups poster with
another of many "you say" opinions which means nothing.
And you are a doctrinaire neo-con, faithfully rehashing the
talking-points and half truths you get from the Heritage Foundation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of Church and State |
29 Apr 2007 04:26:20 AM |
|
|
Blazing Laser wrote:
:|On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 06:22:29 -0400, wrote:
:|
:|>wjyoung <wjyoung@nospam.net> wrote:
:|>
:|>
:|>
:|>>:|They agreed to keep the church separate from Congress, not all
:|>>:|governmnet. The First Amendment restricts only the lawmaking power of
:|>>:|Congress and not that of the States. For that matter, "an establishment
:|>>:|of religion" is a reference to those State establishments of religion
:|>>:|that existed at the time of ratification. The First Amendment was meant
:|>>:|to bar Congress from interfering with these State establishments of
:|>>:|religion and with the same words also bars Congress from establishing
:|>>:|religion for all people in all States.
:|>
:|>
:|>The above argument would carry far more weight if and when you documented
:|>your position with primary source documentation.
:|
:|Why? Would that convince you? Of course not.
:|
Ahem, that is the usual way events which can lead to knowledge, knowing and
so on are established. You know, with evidence, with facts, and the like.
it's called the Historical Method
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method
Check it out, educate yourself.
:|> Until that happens you are just another UseNet Newsgoups poster with
:|>another of many "you say" opinions which means nothing.
:|
:|And you are a doctrinaire neo-con, faithfully rehashing the
:|talking-points and half truths you get from the Heritage Foundation.
LOL!!!!!
What joke.
It is quite evident you don't know anything about me
Check out the following,
Educate yourself
***************************************************************
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: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of Church and State |
26 Apr 2007 05:17:11 AM |
|
|
wjyoung <wjyoung@nospam.net> wrote:
Looking at the whole 'wall of separation' issue it total. It comes down to
this: Presently there is a serious attempt to turn this beloved country of
ours into a theocracy. It's a treasonous attempt. Yes, 'treasonous'. The
founding fathers saw the wisdom of keeping church and state separate.
They agreed to keep the church separate from Congress, not all
governmnet. The First Amendment restricts only the lawmaking power of
Congress and not that of the States
The Federal Government has extremely limited powers without Congress
passing laws that enable those powers. If it spends money in support
of actions favoring a church activity, then Congress has indeed passed
a law respecting an establishment of religion.
For that matter, "an establishment
of religion" is a reference to those State establishments of religion
that existed at the time of ratification.
Which "establishments" meant governments supporting particular
religious groups with laws and money.
The First Amendment was meant
to bar Congress from interfering with these State establishments of
religion
The 14th amendment took care of State violations of the rights stated
or implied by the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
and with the same words also bars Congress from establishing
religion for all people in all States.
"establishing" = "supporting with law or money"
They,
no doubt, envisioned something akin to what is going on today by religious
extremists. *Treasonous* extremists, I might add. That's why they refused to
officially pronounce our nation a 'Christian' one; and why they left it up
to the individual to choose what they wanted to believe -- or not believe.
Smart men, were they. Very smart.
I think many would have objected to the notion of a "nation" at all.
The First Amendment, among other sections, is a testament to the desire
of the founders to create a republic, not a nation.
A republic is a kind of nation. You cannot have a republic without a
nation.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "wjyoung" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of Church and State |
26 Apr 2007 10:27:08 PM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
wjyoung <wjyoung@nospam.net> wrote:
Looking at the whole 'wall of separation' issue it total. It comes down to
this: Presently there is a serious attempt to turn this beloved country of
ours into a theocracy. It's a treasonous attempt. Yes, 'treasonous'. The
founding fathers saw the wisdom of keeping church and state separate.
They agreed to keep the church separate from Congress, not all
governmnet. The First Amendment restricts only the lawmaking power of
Congress and not that of the States
The Federal Government has extremely limited powers without Congress
passing laws that enable those powers. If it spends money in support
of actions favoring a church activity, then Congress has indeed passed
a law respecting an establishment of religion.
For that matter, "an establishment
of religion" is a reference to those State establishments of religion
that existed at the time of ratification.
Which "establishments" meant governments supporting particular
religious groups with laws and money.
The First Amendment was meant
to bar Congress from interfering with these State establishments of
religion
The 14th amendment took care of State violations of the rights stated
or implied by the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
The previous writer suggested that the founding fathers intended to
completely separate religion from all government with the First
Amendment. That is incorrect. To the contrary, the founding fathers,
namely the legislators of the States that passed the First Amendment,
clearly intended to protect the Power of the States to establish
religion. The words of the Amendment plainly convey this.
Furthermore, none of the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights would
bar the States from establishing religion either, even if they were held
to apply to the States and not only to Congress and the US.
As for the Fourteenth Amendment, the interpretation of that Amendment
invokes the First Amendment in its conclusion to block the States from
exercising the very Powers the First was intended to preserve for the
States.
and with the same words also bars Congress from establishing
religion for all people in all States.
"establishing" = "supporting with law or money"
They,
no doubt, envisioned something akin to what is going on today by religious
extremists. *Treasonous* extremists, I might add. That's why they refused to
officially pronounce our nation a 'Christian' one; and why they left it up
to the individual to choose what they wanted to believe -- or not believe.
Smart men, were they. Very smart.
I think many would have objected to the notion of a "nation" at all.
The First Amendment, among other sections, is a testament to the desire
of the founders to create a republic, not a nation.
A republic is a kind of nation. You cannot have a republic without a
nation.
A republic is in general a non-monarchy, where the people are sovereign
and elect representatives to government. It need not be a nation to be
a republic. Even accepting that, of course, I have compared apples to
oranges in my original contention.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of Church and State |
28 Apr 2007 06:03:07 AM |
|
|
wjyoung <wjyoung@nospam.net> wrote:
:|The previous writer suggested that the founding fathers intended to
:|completely separate religion from all government with the First
:|Amendment. That is incorrect.
It is not nearly as incorrect as you would like to make it seem
Note:
IRONICALLY THE FIRST FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
On June 8, 1789 James Madison delivered his long awaited list of proposed
amendments to the House of Representatives. After several debates
scattered throughout the summer the following is a partial list of the
amendments that was passed by the House of Representative and sent on to
the Senate.
Note especially Article the Fourteenth. That article, passed by the
necessary number of votes called for selective incorporation against the
state some of the other Articles.
This particular article was defeated in the Senate after secret debate and
a secret vote. It must be remember at this particular point in time in
American History, the House of Representative represented "the people."
It's members were elected directly by the people. The Senate, on the
other hand, represented the states. It's members were selected by the state
legislatures.
It is ironic that this particular Article was numbered fourteen and that it
called for selective incorporation of other amendments in the "BORs
package" against the states. It is interesting that it was passed by "the
people's" representatives, but defeated by the state's representatives. It
is very ironic that another Article also numbered fourteen was passed some
79 or so years later and that it would, in time be used to selectively
incorporate other Articles of the "BORs package" against the states.
****************************************************************
AUGUST 17, 1789-- FIRST FEDERAL CONGRESS (Amendments)
The committee then proceeded to the fifth proposition:
Article I, Section 10 between the first and second paragraph,
insert 'No state shall infringe the equal rights of conscience, nor the
freedom of speech or of the press, nor of the right of trial by jury in
criminal cases.'
Mr. TUCKER this is offered, I presume, as an amendment to the
constitution of the United States, but it goes only to the alteration of
constitutions of particular states. It will be much better, I apprehend,
to leave the state governments to themselves, and not to interfere with
them more than we already do; and that is thought by many to be rather too
much. I therefore move, Sir, to strike out these words.
Mr. MADISON conceives this to be the most valuable amendment in the
whole list. If there were any reason to restrain the government of the
United States from infringing upon these essential rights, it was equally
necessary that they should be secured against the state governments. He
thought that if they provided against one, it was as necessary to provide
against the other, and it was satisfied that it would be equally grateful
to the people.
Mr. LIVERMORE had no great objection to the sentiment, but he
thought it not well expressed. He wished to make it an affirmative
proposition; 'the equal rights of conscience, the freedom of speech or of
the press, and the right of trial by jury in criminal cases, shall not be
infringed by any state.'
This transposition being agreed to, and MR. TUCKER'S motion being
rejected, the clause was adopted. (In the final wording of the amendments
that was sent to the Senate the transposition had not taken place. No
reason for that mistake is recorded.)
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the
United States (Annals of Congress) August 17, 1789, Vol. I, Joseph Gales,
published by Gales and Seaton, Washington, 1834, pp 749-756 )
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AUGUST 24, 1789--FIRST FEDERAL CONGRESS (Amendments, references to
religion)
House Resolution and Articles of Amendment,
August 24, 1789
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATE In the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, 14th August, 1789,
RESOLVED, BY THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN CONGRESS ASSEMBLED, two thirds Of both Houses
deeming it necessary, That the following Articles be proposed to the
Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of
the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three
fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes
as part of the said Constitution--Viz.
ARTICLES in addition to, and amendment of, the Constitution of the
United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the
Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the
original Constitution.
ARTICLE THE THIRD.
Congress shall make no law establishing religion or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of Conscience be infringed.
ARTICLE THE FOURTH.
The Freedom of Speech, and of the Press, and the right of the People
peaceably to assemble, and consult for their common good, and to apply co
the Government for a redress of grievances, shall nor be infringed.
ARTICLE THE FIFTH.
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the
best security of a free Scare, the right of the People to keep and bear
arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing
arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person
ARTICLE THE FOURTEENTH.
No State shall infringe the right of trial by Jury in criminal cases, nor
the rights of conscience, nor the freedom of speech, or of the press.
Teste,
JOHN BECKLEY, CLERK
In Senate, August 25, 1789
Read and ordered to be printed for the
consideration of the Senate.
SOURCE OF INFORMATION:: Creating the Bill of Rights, The Documentary Record
from the First Federal Congress, Edited by Helen E. Veit, Kenneth R.
Bowling, Charlene Bangs Bickford, The John Hopkins University Press,
Baltimore and London, 1991, pp 37-41
====================================================
So you see, based on the historical record and the votes as cast in
Congress, a minority of Congressional type founders sidestrack
that. The intention of the majority was not as you claim.
:|To the contrary, the founding fathers,
:|namely the legislators of the States that passed the First Amendment,
:|clearly intended to protect the Power of the States to establish
:|religion.
I always love it when people try to use psychological principles. PLanting
suggestions with the use of words such as clearly, plainly, etc.
If it were truly so clear or plain all would see it, you wouldn't have to
use words such as clearly and plainly. The fact that you do use such words
indicates its not clear or plain at all.
Now, I would love to see you show, with documentation the intenstions you
state they clearly had.
HINT: You can't do it becaseu there are no historical records of any of
the debaters in any of the states with regards to the BORs. Now official
records, no newspaper accounts of the deabates.
The only records are a coupole letters in Virginia regardign their debates
as I recall. Otherwiose no primary source documents, not records. NADA.
That leaves you and your claim in a pickle.
:| The words of the Amendment plainly convey this.
LOL. If the words of the Amendment were so plain maybe you could explain
why there has been hundreds or thousands of books , articles, essays, court
opinions written trying to explain those PLAIN (in your opinion) words.
If you really want to know what they mean, study the wrods of Madison.
Study his vetoes study his words where he meantions separation, study his
Detached Memoranda.
The wrods aren't as confusing as most have mande them out to be, you are
partly right on that, but they don't support your view
You see the real problem is the Constitution was never written with the
idea of political parties in mind.
The confusion and conflicting court opinions in church state jurisprudence
is a result of political philosophies pretty much.
You are spouting the "conservative" view the Joseph Story view,
accommodationsist or non preferential view. Madison on the other hand
represented the Progressive, some might say radical views for that time and
place.
However, it was his view that Everson represents. His view as expressed in
this
ARTICLE THE THIRD
Congress shall make no law establishing religion or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of Conscience be infringed.
ARTICLE THE FOURTEENTH.
No State shall infringe the right of trial by Jury in criminal cases, nor
the rights of conscience, nor the freedom of speech, or of the press.
The founders didn't trust government, they didn't trust institutions that
included the institutions known as religion/churches.
Church state separation is one of the checks and balances thay put in the
Constitution along with the separation of powers two house Congress UUSC
etc.
They knew history, they knew that religion/churches dominated and
controlled governments at times, just as government had dominated and
controlled religion, churches at times.
They knew that unions between these various banches only spelled trouble
for WE THE PEOPLE.
***************************************************************
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: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of Church and State |
26 Apr 2007 11:57:11 PM |
|
|
wjyoung <wjyoung@nospam.net> wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
wjyoung <wjyoung@nospam.net> wrote:
The First Amendment was meant
to bar Congress from interfering with these State establishments of
religion
The 14th amendment took care of State violations of the rights stated
or implied by the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
The previous writer suggested that the founding fathers intended to
completely separate religion from all government with the First
Amendment.
It is quite arguable that James Madison did so intend in the version
he originally proposed, but that version did not survive.
That is incorrect. To the contrary, the founding fathers,
namely the legislators of the States that passed the First Amendment,
clearly intended to protect the Power of the States to establish
religion. The words of the Amendment plainly convey this.
I don't think that this is in evidence. I think all that can be said
is that they did not feel *at that point* that such an amendment could
pass in the necessary numbers of states.
In some cases, no doubt, the considered that the Constitution was
about the Federal government only, and that states should pass their
own versions of the Bill of Rights for the state level.
This was rendered moot after the Civil war.
As for the Fourteenth Amendment, the interpretation of that Amendment
invokes the First Amendment in its conclusion to block the States from
exercising the very Powers the First was intended to preserve for the
States.
You are lacking in evidence that any of the BofR other than the 10th
gave any powers to the states. The 10th was worded such that any
positive statement of Federal power, such as the 14th, was necessarily
exclusionary of state power.
I think many would have objected to the notion of a "nation" at all.
The First Amendment, among other sections, is a testament to the desire
of the founders to create a republic, not a nation.
A republic is a kind of nation. You cannot have a republic without a
nation.
A republic is in general a non-monarchy,
A monarchy is also a nation.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "wjyoung" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of Church and State |
27 Apr 2007 01:29:56 AM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
wjyoung <wjyoung@nospam.net> wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
wjyoung <wjyoung@nospam.net> wrote:
The First Amendment was meant
to bar Congress from interfering with these State establishments of
religion
The 14th amendment took care of State violations of the rights stated
or implied by the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
The previous writer suggested that the founding fathers intended to
completely separate religion from all government with the First
Amendment.
It is quite arguable that James Madison did so intend in the version
he originally proposed, but that version did not survive.
It might even be a statement of fact, no argument required, but what's
the point? We could split hairs on the general topic or for present
purposes agree that all we can really say of what the "founding fathers"
intended with the First Amendment is what it plainly states. For that
matter, by the way, Madison and the others at the convention did not
ratify the Constitution or the First Amendment.
That is incorrect. To the contrary, the founding fathers,
namely the legislators of the States that passed the First Amendment,
clearly intended to protect the Power of the States to establish
religion. The words of the Amendment plainly convey this.
I don't think that this is in evidence. I think all that can be said
is that they did not feel *at that point* that such an amendment could
pass in the necessary numbers of states.
The law is the best evidence of the intent of those who passed it. The
States wanted to ensure Congress did not interfere with their
establishments of religion *at any point*. That's why they passed the
First Amendment.
In some cases, no doubt, the considered that the Constitution was
about the Federal government only, and that states should pass their
own versions of the Bill of Rights for the state level.
They could if they wanted, but were under no obligation to do so.
This was rendered moot after the Civil war.
The Civil War did not erase history, least of all that upon which its
legitimacy is supposedly founded.
As for the Fourteenth Amendment, the interpretation of that Amendment
invokes the First Amendment in its conclusion to block the States from
exercising the very Powers the First was intended to preserve for the
States.
You are lacking in evidence that any of the BofR other than the 10th
gave any powers to the states. The 10th was worded such that any
positive statement of Federal power, such as the 14th, was necessarily
exclusionary of state power.
I have not been arguing that any of the BoR, least of all the 10th
Amendment, gave Powers to the States. The 10th Amendment merely
acknowledges the nature of that relationship. The Powers not given to
Congress or prohibited to the States belonged to the States or the
people by default. As Jefferson noted, this was already true as a
general principle. The States were not barred from establishing
religion and therefore had that Power by default. The States did not
need the US Constitution to give them that Power. For that matter the
US Constitution does not give the States any Power at all. That's for
the State Constitutions.
I have not argued that the 14th does not include prohibitions on the
States. I recognize fully that the 14th imposes certain restrictions on
the States. The language plainly conveys that.
I'm just saying that the interpretation of the 14th Amendment that it
restricts the States in the same manner as Congress is restricted by the
First contradicts the fact that the purpose of the First was to preserve
those very Powers to the States. Again, the First mentions "an
establishment of religion", which is a reference to the pre-existing
Power of the States to establish religion.
I think many would have objected to the notion of a "nation" at all.
The First Amendment, among other sections, is a testament to the desire
of the founders to create a republic, not a nation.
A republic is a kind of nation. You cannot have a republic without a
nation.
A republic is in general a non-monarchy,
A monarchy is also a nation.
It need not be a monarchy to be a nation. It need not be a republic to
be a nation. We compare apples to oranges.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of Church and State |
27 Apr 2007 05:33:22 AM |
|
|
wjyoung <wjyoung@nospam.net> wrote:
I don't think that this is in evidence. I think all that can be said
is that they did not feel *at that point* that such an amendment could
pass in the necessary numbers of states.
The law is the best evidence of the intent of those who passed it.
The Supreme Court is the best evidence of what the law is, since they
have the authority to decide what the law is.
The
States wanted to ensure Congress did not interfere with their
establishments of religion *at any point*.
There is no particular evidence that any state was concerned with
Federal interference in a state "establishment of religion". Indeed,
by the time of the Bill of Rights, most such establishments had been
eliminated, or were in the process of being eliminated.
That's why they passed the First Amendment.
That is NOT why they passed the First Amendment.
This was rendered moot after the Civil war.
The Civil War did not erase history, least of all that upon which its
legitimacy is supposedly founded.
It made history, and it made this country a single country, and it
thoroughly stomped all over the idea of "states rights".
As for the Fourteenth Amendment, the interpretation of that Amendment
invokes the First Amendment in its conclusion to block the States from
exercising the very Powers the First was intended to preserve for the
States.
You are lacking in evidence that any of the BofR other than the 10th
gave any powers to the states. The 10th was worded such that any
positive statement of Federal power, such as the 14th, was necessarily
exclusionary of state power.
I have not been arguing that any of the BoR, least of all the 10th
Amendment, gave Powers to the States. The 10th Amendment merely
acknowledges the nature of that relationship.
The Powers not given to
Congress or prohibited to the States belonged to the States or the
people by default.
The 14th amendment prohibited to the states the power to do those
things prohibited to the Federal government.
I'm just saying that the interpretation of the 14th Amendment that it
restricts the States in the same manner as Congress is restricted by the
First contradicts the fact that the purpose of the First was to preserve
those very Powers to the States.
That was not the purpose of the first. The purpose of the first was
to prohibit overstepping by the Federal government. It was silent on
the states, NOT because they wanted to preserve any powers, but
because it was the original purpose of the Constitution to define the
Federal government, and not the state governments.
Again, the First mentions "an
establishment of religion", which is a reference to the pre-existing
Power of the States to establish religion.
No it doesn't. It refers to establishments of religion as were
practiced in Europe.
A republic is a kind of nation. You cannot have a republic without a
nation.
A republic is in general a non-monarchy,
A monarchy is also a nation.
It need not be a monarchy to be a nation.
But it needs to be a nation to be a monarchy.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "3318 Dead" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of Church and State |
22 Apr 2007 11:08:53 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 10:56:10 -0400, "birdog" <birdog@aol.com> wrote:
"Codebreaker" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:1177176411.673991.152330@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 21, 1:14 pm, Blazing Laser wrote:
Jefferson is on record as advocating 'a wall of separation between
church and state', but people today, especially Christians, don't seem
to realize that he made this promise to -religious- people, not
atheists. Jefferson was afraid that religion mixing with politics
would corrupt not the government but the church. And if you open your
eyes and look around you, you'll see that that's exactly what's
happening today, with the erosion of the wall between church and state
that's gone on so far.
The fundamentalist Christian church has become a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the GOP. Crooked religious leaders have sold out to the
party for their own self-aggranidzement. Christians who profess to
believe in principles morality are completely blind to the corruption
and criminality of the GOP because these corrupt leaders tell them
it's no less than their Christian duty to vote Republican. And anyone
who fights to keep religion out of courtrooms or public schools (like
the ACLU) is unfairly bashed as being anti-Christian.
This is a textbook case of a 'Faustian bargain'. By believing
uncritically, and by being taught that getting what you want is more
important than principles, Christians have sold out to the Devil
himself.
If you don't like it, go and drink from the SEA.
Constitutionally, there AIN'T no "separation of church and state".
Really? Then tell us, Birdie, why the constitution explicity forbids
any religious test for any office or position of public trust in the
united States.
--
"I am fully committed, as the administration's fully committed, to ensure that, with respect to every United States
attorney position in this country, we will have a presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed United States attorney."
--Alberto Gonzales, committing perjury before Congress
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)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
.
|
|
|
| User: "JohnJohnsn" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of Church and State |
25 Apr 2007 08:49:39 AM |
|
|
On Apr 22, 11:08 am, Bryan "Zepp the Lying Socialist Weasel" Jamieson,
posting as "3318 Dead" <zepp@finestplanet.com> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 10:56:10 -0400, "birdog" <bir...@aol.com> wrote:
Constitutionally, there AIN'T no "separation of church and state".
Really? Then tell us, Birdie, why the constitution explicity forbids
any religious test for any office or position of public trust in the
united States.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
is not the same thing as:
"no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any
office or public trust under the United States".
"No religious test" mean anyone, religious of nonreligious, has the
right to seek public office.
For the record: the principle of "separation of church and state" does
_not_ appear in the United States Constitution.
It _does_, however, appear here:
ARTICLE 124. In order to ensure to citizens freedom of conscience, the
church in the U.S.S.R. is separated from the state, and the school
from the church. Freedom of religious worship and freedom of
antireligious propaganda is recognized for all citizens.
<http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/
36cons04.html#chap10>
DISMISSED, Comrade Jamieson!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of Church and State |
25 Apr 2007 11:15:39 AM |
|
|
JohnJohnsn <JohnJohnsn@mindspring.com> wrote:
For the record: the principle of "separation of church and state" does
_not_ appear in the United States Constitution.
Yes it does. The specific words do not appear, but the principle
does.
Similarly, you won't find the words "three branches of government" or
the words "separation of powers" or the words "checks and balances" in
the constitution, but all three are principles found in the
constitution.
"Principle" is a label used for abstract concepts.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "JohnJohnsn" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of Church and State |
26 Apr 2007 07:42:22 AM |
|
|
On Apr 25, 11:15 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
JohnJohnsn <JohnJoh...@mindspring.com> wrote:
For the record: the principle of "separation of church and state"
does _not_ appear in the United States Constitution.
Yes it does.
Cite.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of Church and State |
26 Apr 2007 10:42:06 AM |
|
|
JohnJohnsn <JohnJohnsn@mindspring.com> wrote:
On Apr 25, 11:15 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
JohnJohnsn <JohnJoh...@mindspring.com> wrote:
For the record: the principle of "separation of church and state"
does _not_ appear in the United States Constitution.
Yes it does.
Cite.
USSC 1947 Everson v Board of Education
.
|
|
|
| User: "JohnJohnsn" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of Church and State |
26 Apr 2007 09:31:04 PM |
|
|
On Apr 26, 10:42 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
JohnJohnsn <JohnJoh...@mindspring.com> wrote:
On Apr 25, 11:15 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
JohnJohnsn <JohnJoh...@mindspring.com> wrote:
For the record: the principle of "separation of church and state"
does _not_ appear in the United States Constitution.
Yes it does.
Cite.
USSC 1947 Everson v Board of Education
You stated it appears in the Constitution, but when asked for the cite
_from_ the Constitution you go to the Supreme Court.
Try again for the _original_ cite you claimed.
BTW: "USSC" stands for United States Sentencing Commission <http://
www.ussc.gov>. If you _mean_ the Supreme Court state it as SCotUS
(Supreme Court of the United States <www.supremecourtus.gov>).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of Church and State |
26 Apr 2007 11:48:11 PM |
|
|
JohnJohnsn <JohnJohnsn@mindspring.com> wrote:
On Apr 26, 10:42 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
JohnJohnsn <JohnJoh...@mindspring.com> wrote:
On Apr 25, 11:15 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
JohnJohnsn <JohnJoh...@mindspring.com> wrote:
For the record: the principle of "separation of church and state"
does _not_ appear in the United States Constitution.
Yes it does.
Cite.
USSC 1947 Everson v Board of Education
You stated it appears in the Constitution,
I said that the PRINCIPLE is in the constitution, not the words.
Just as the PRINCIPLES of "separation of powers", "three coequal
branches of government", "checks and balances" etc. are all in the
constitution, but you won't find the specific words used therein.
but when asked for the cite
_from_ the Constitution you go to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court is the authoritative source for decisions as to what
PRINCIPLES are in the constitution.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of Church and State |
27 Apr 2007 05:28:08 AM |
|
|
==
while the law may not be everyone's
religion, Law -is- some people's religion.
"congress shall make no law establishing law"
and in certain respects, a "church"
is nothing but a congregation of people.
"separation of people and state"
basically, you don't really even have to consult
the idea of "framer's intent" when you consider
the idea of "separation of Church and State"
it doesn't matter that the actual term;
"separation" doesn't appear in the
constitution as written.
-if- such language as 'separation of church and state'
actually appeared in the constitution, many frivolous
lawsuits could now be entertained contending that no
'Christian' may hold public office.
what does matter is the difference between
a "Church" as an institutional body and
a group of people who happen to be religious.
there is no 'wall of separation' possible,
but more of a chain link fence through which
notes may be easily passed and gates which allow
for members of any 'Church' to hold public office.
in America we say that we are
a "nation of laws and not of men"
that is, the "State" -is- the code of Law
which -binds- the people together, and is,
therefore, demonstrably a 'religious' enterprise.
where "religion" means "to tie"
no one wants a -particular- "Church" or
'institutional religious body' to interfere
directly in matters of State or the direct
implacement of a particular interpretation
or group preferrence over all other
interpretations encoded in to Law.
no one wants a "State" to interefere directly
in matters of "Church" where Law would be encoded
which would stand in direct contrast to a given
ethical interpretation of a set of people
who seek self governance.
but, there is simply no convenient way to construe
these sentiments to imply that a people, who happen
to be religious, are to be forbidden from participating
in their own governance or that a State need seek to
maintain the 'secular' nature of -itself- by ridding
-itself- of all -appearance- of 'religious' doctrine.
that is to say, no one may insist that a religious
people must be governed by an irreligious people.
this is false on the face of it.
but the simple fact that 'religion' and 'law'
are identical to some people precludes any notion
that a 'nation of Laws' can -not- be instituted
nor kept safe by a religious people.
in fact a religious people are likely to be
the more staunch protectors of properly
codified ethical behaviors.
with the allowance that variant
points of view shall be considered.
not and never;
"religion has no place in government"
religion does have a place in government,
and, for some, law -is- religion.
walking a tightrope is not to be confused
with cutting the ties that bind us
together as a people.
now, just look at these and see if you
can see how fair business practices are
some people's "religion"
and so, business practices in general
are also points of religious activity.
---
Leviticus 19:36
You shall have honest scales, honest weights,
an honest ephah, and an honest hin: I am YHWH
your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt.
Leviticus 25:36
Take no usury or interest from him;
but fear your God, that your brother
may live with you.
Leviticus 25:37
You shall not lend him your money for
usury, nor lend him your food at a profit.
Deuteronomy 15:1
"At the end of every seven years
you shall grant a release of debts.
Proverbs 11:1
Dishonest scales are an abomination to YHWH,
But a just weight is His delight.
Proverbs 16:11
Honest weights and scales are YHWH's;
All the weights in the bag are His work.
Proverbs 20:23
Diverse weights are an abomination to YHWH,
And dishonest scales are not good.
Proverbs 22:26
Do not be one of those who shakes hands
in a pledge, One of those who is surety
for debts;
Isaiah 24:2
And it shall be: As with the people,
so with the priest; As with the servant,
so with his master; As with the maid,
so with her mistress; As with the buyer,
so with the seller; As with the lender,
so with the borrower; As with the creditor,
so with the debtor.
---
and so this would be funny in that you can see
how Congress shall make no laws establishing
business nor inhibitting the free exercise thereof.
-that- you can see very clearly.
Congress isn't supposed to be in the business
of making business because Congress could be
subsumed and stack the deck in someone's favor.
and we seek after "Justice"
Congress is supposed to see to it that business
is freely carried out but not to establish a
business of it's own.
and for some people, the activity of engaging
in contracts and deals and commerce -is- a
'religious' activity.
the problem arises when "Justice"
is perverted in this endeavor.
the problem arises when people worship
the -benefits- of business practices
over and above the God who makes
all things possible.
the problem arises when one uses government
to inhibit the free trade of someone else
in favor of their own free trade.
that is our old friend "Cynical Pragmatism"
rearing its ugly head again,,,and again.
and these are 'religious' practices.
and you never -have- to mention "God"
even if "God" appears on all the money.
and now you begin to see the tricky tightrope
of the establishment clause.
it is -not- just about saying "God" in public.
it is -not- just about the free exercise of
going to a 'Church' building on the weekends.
"religion" does -not- consist entirely of
"worship" in a Church building or thereabouts.
"religion" encompasses nearly all
of one's day to day practices.
are -you- a person of your word?
that is, when -you- enter into contract
with soneone, can they trust you to
stand behind your word?
-this- is a "religious" quality.
the so-called 'major religions'
are quite concerned with the
bond of your word.
and so, your 'religion' shows itself
in your business practices and in
your legal practices and in your
interpersonal relationships.
now tell me how much you want "Congress"
involved these aspects of your life.
but they are.
so, don't go on about separation of church and state
as if it pertains -only- to 'worship' of "God"
what exactly is "worship" anyway?
-acting- in manners befitting your call?
etc.
==========
and so, basically, if you want to say that
not all 'laws' found in the 'bible' are of
a 'religious' nature, then anyone who wants
to see that such 'laws' are instituted publicly
are not crashing down any sort of
establishment clause.
if you wish to say that all 'laws' found
in the bible are of a 'religious' nature,
then the practice of law and business
are religious practices, regardless
of perspective.
either way, you really ought
to choose your enemies
more carefully.
or is that friends?
===========
so, i guess what some of this comes down to
is that corruption and dissatisfaction breeds
corruption and dissatisfaction.
if your dealings are corrupted, you invite
legalities into your life which seek out
some sort of correction to justice
and when your legal structures get corrupted
they still get all in your business and you
want them off your back, but you still want
to behave in a corrupt manner yourself, and,
are unwilling to seek out corrections so,
you get stuck with a legal gorilla on your
back even if that legal gorilla is more
corrupt than you are, or less.
meaning, the legal structures that get on your
back are just coming in response to your already
corrupted dealings, so, you can't really blame
that thing if it becomes as corrupted as you are.
but that's its nature.
no matter what, corrupt dealings
-invite- legal structures into
your life.
if you -really- want the
government off your back,
be fair your self.
otherwise, it has every right
to camp out on your doorstep.
and then, you can accuse each other
of encouraging bad dealings -just- so
the 'authorities' can get and remain
all up in your business.
as opposed to encouraging good and fair
dealings, so you can get and remain free.
cuz you -like- the gorilla on your back.
it gives you something to complain about.
and then our eyes glaze over.
and now, for the uplifting finish?
yeah....right.
it's always -been- in your power to be free.
like you needed -me- to tell you that.
but you have to shed your corruption
and walk in a manner befitting free people.
guess this means you have to help each other out.
or not, and then you can go right along
complaining about that beam in your eye
and how it obstructs your view of the hanging.
even if it's your own,
beam -and- hanging.
hurray for Jesus.
make me free in deed indeed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of Church and State |
27 Apr 2007 06:19:03 AM |
|
|
simply put, "law" is some people's religion.
'religion' is -not- a matter
of 'worship for deity,' alone.
'religion' simply means "to tie"
and 'law' -is- a tie between man and man
and not simply between God and man.
the 'law' not only ties man and
God together, but man and man.
and ideas -about- God aside from, or without,
any sort of direct -tie- is -not- 'religion'
but something else.
and in this same maner, any institution which
-ties- man together is by nature 'religious'
whether you mention "God" or not.
and any reformulating of the word 'religion'
to mean exclusively "belief in God" is simply false.
'religion' means 'to tie'
the same root where we get
the word "ligature" from.
so you get the romans citing a 'God', Jupiter,
as emblematic of laws and social order,
where such laws is contractual by
the very nature of the thing itself,
as an agreement between people.
so, "Congress shall not establish religion"
has need of careful and continuous consideration.
Congress does, by it's very nature,
establish and promulgate religion.
whether or not, Congress ever mentions Deity.
otherwise you will have to scour thru "The Law"
that is "Torah" and piece out all the 'laws' which
you claim have nothing to do with "God" and say
that -this- law is not entirely 'religious' in nature.
which will be impossible inasmuch as the contract
makes -all- of these laws applicable to one's
societal relationship with YHWH, a 'God'.
and so, things of this nature;
---
Leviticus 19:36
Leviticus 25:36
Leviticus 25:37
Deuteronomy 15:1
---
can not be abstracted from the law
and called "non-religious" laws.
and yet, these laws may be instituted in
a 'secular' state without the 'appearance'
of establishment.
but the non 'appearance' does not remove
the reality of an establishment.
that is, YHWH 'commands' fair weights
and measures and if Congress demands
the same, they are establishing -a- 'religion,'
whether you like it or not.
but anyway, as far as "christianity"
is concerned, christianity isn't
legal process driven.
that is, the inscription of God's Faith
isn't based on a legal structure.
we are the fulfillment of a contract.
so, one could -try- to blot it out thru
legal machinations, and fail utterly.
we aren't driven by symbology,
so, attacking our symbols won't
denigrate our Faith.
we aren't driven by supreme wealth
so attacking our monetary status
will never wipe us out.
we are driven by God and God cannot be shaken.
-but- none of -this- removes the fact that
some people's 'religion' -is- the law and
that law is a religious practice in and of itself.
and, one -could- use legal machinations
to make -our- lives more difficult,
but no legal machinery will ever
wipe God from Living Reality.
and inasmuch as we -are- following after
God's own Faith, we will never be abolished
by any human mechanism.
so, why engage in exercises in futility?
==
Galatians 5:22-24
But the fruit of the Spirit is love,
joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness,
goodness, faithfulness, gentleness,
self-control.
Against such there is no law.
==
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of Church and State |
27 Apr 2007 07:35:07 AM |
|
|
On Apr 27, 2007, Timothy Sutter wrote:
simply put, "law" is some people's religion.
'religion' is -not- a matter
of 'worship for deity,' alone.
'religion' simply means "to tie"
Uh, well, it does not.
Derivation does not define definition.
------------------
New American Oxford Dictionary:
religion | noun
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a
personal God or gods: ideas about the relationship between science
and religion.
€ details of belief as taught or discussed: when the school first
opened they taught only religion, Italian, and mathematics.
€ a particular system of faith and worship: the world's great
religions.
€ a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance:
consumerism is the new religion.
Gray Shockley
--------------------------
Calvin: These are interesting times.
We don't trust the government,
We don't trust the legal system,
We don't trust the media,
and we don't trust each other!
We've undermined all authority,
and with it, the basis for replacing it!
Hobbes: "Interesting" is a mild way of putting it.
Calvin: It's like a six-year-old's dream come true.
and 'law' -is- a tie between man and man
and not simply between God and man.
the 'law' not only ties man and
God together, but man and man.
and ideas -about- God aside from, or without,
any sort of direct -tie- is -not- 'religion'
but something else.
and in this same maner, any institution which
-ties- man together is by nature 'religious'
whether you mention "God" or not.
and any reformulating of the word 'religion'
to mean exclusively "belief in God" is simply false.
'religion' means 'to tie'
the same root where we get
the word "ligature" from.
so you get the romans citing a 'God', Jupiter,
as emblematic of laws and social order,
where such laws is contractual by
the very nature of the thing itself,
as an agreement between people.
so, "Congress shall not establish religion"
has need of careful and continuous consideration.
Congress does, by it's very nature,
establish and promulgate religion.
whether or not, Congress ever mentions Deity.
otherwise you will have to scour thru "The Law"
that is "Torah" and piece out all the 'laws' which
you claim have nothing to do with "God" and say
that -this- law is not entirely 'religious' in nature.
which will be impossible inasmuch as the contract
makes -all- of these laws applicable to one's
societal relationship with YHWH, a 'God'.
and so, things of this nature;
---
Leviticus 19:36
Leviticus 25:36
Leviticus 25:37
Deuteronomy 15:1
---
can not be abstracted from the law
and called "non-religious" laws.
and yet, these laws may be instituted in
a 'secular' state without the 'appearance'
of establishment.
but the non 'appearance' does not remove
the reality of an establishment.
that is, YHWH 'commands' fair weights
and measures and if Congress demands
the same, they are establishing -a- 'religion,'
whether you like it or not.
but anyway, as far as "christianity"
is concerned, christianity isn't
legal process driven.
that is, the inscription of God's Faith
isn't based on a legal structure.
we are the fulfillment of a contract.
so, one could -try- to blot it out thru
legal machinations, and fail utterly.
we aren't driven by symbology,
so, attacking our symbols won't
denigrate our Faith.
we aren't driven by supreme wealth
so attacking our monetary status
will never wipe us out.
we are driven by God and God cannot be shaken.
-but- none of -this- removes the fact that
some people's 'religion' -is- the law and
that law is a religious practice in and of itself.
and, one -could- use legal machinations
to make -our- lives more difficult,
but no legal machinery will ever
wipe God from Living Reality.
and inasmuch as we -are- following after
God's own Faith, we will never be abolished
by any human mechanism.
so, why engage in exercises in futility?
==
Galatians 5:22-24
But the fruit of the Spirit is love,
joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness,
goodness, faithfulness, gentleness,
self-control.
Against such there is no law.
==
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of Church and State |
27 Apr 2007 08:03:00 AM |
|
|
Timothy Sutter wrote:
simply put, "law" is some people's religion.
'religion' is -not- a matter
of 'worship for deity,' alone.
'religion' simply means "to tie"
Gray Shockley wrote:
Uh, well, it does not.
yes, it does,
[Origin: 1150–1200; ME religioun (< OF religion)
< L religio-n- (s. of religio-) conscientiousness,
piety, equiv. to relig(a-re) to tie, fasten
(re- re- + liga-re to bind, tie; cf. ligament)
+ -io-n- -ion; cf. rely]
it's equivalent to 'fasten'
it does carry this meaning, "to tie"
Gray Shockley wrote:
Derivation does not define definition.
and yet, it -does- when you are considering
the statements made by people 200 years -before-
your present dictionary has been set in place.
it is impracticable to suggest that the framers
of the constitution relied on a twentieth century
dictionary to convey their menaning.
and, undoubtedly, the framers were classically educated
and would have known of and relied heavily on this word's
latin roots and not on any twentieth century baggage
that it may have accumulated.
so, your citation of the
"New American Oxford Dictionary"
is not entirely to the point.
Gray Shockley wrote:
------------------
New American Oxford Dictionary:
religion | noun
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a
personal God or gods: ideas about the relationship between science
and religion.
€ details of belief as taught or discussed: when the school first
opened they taught only religion, Italian, and mathematics.
€ a particular system of faith and worship: the world's great
religions.
€ a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance:
consumerism is the new religion.
and -still- some people's 'religion' -is- 'the law'
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of Church and State |
27 Apr 2007 08:14:51 AM |
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
