| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
11 Aug 2005 12:59:23 PM |
| Object: |
Separation of Church and State: A First Amendment Primer |
Separation of Church and State: A First Amendment Primer
http://www.adl.org/issue_religious_freedom/print.asp
[ excerpt]
Separation: Good for Government, Good for Religion
The right to freedom of religion is so central to American democracy that
it was enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution along with
other fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of the
press.
In order to guarantee an atmosphere of absolute religious liberty, this
country's founders also mandated the strict separation of church and state.
Largely because of this prohibition against government regulation or
endorsement of religion, diverse faiths have flourished and thrived in
America since the founding of the republic. Indeed, James Madison, the
father of the United States Constitution, once observed that "the
[religious] devotion of the people has been manifestly increased by the
total separation of the church from the state."
Americans are still among the most religious people in the world. Yet the
government plays almost no role in promoting, endorsing or funding
religious institutions or religious beliefs. Free from government control
-- and without government assistance -- religious values, literature,
traditions and holidays permeate the lives of our citizens and, in their
diverse ways, form an integral part of our national culture. By maintaining
the wall separating church and state, we can guarantee the continued
vitality of religion in American life.
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of Church and State: A First Amendment Primer |
17 Aug 2005 07:50:54 AM |
|
|
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
:|
:|cartmanesq@yahoo.com wrote:
:|> fred wrote:
:|> > You're merely perpetuating the lie that the Founding Fathers had
:|> > decided on absolute church/state separation. Again, the 10th Amendment
:|> > reserved the power to address religion to the states since the 1st
:|> > Amendment explicitly prohibited only Congress (the federal government)
:|> > from having this power. The essay below explains this:
:|> >
:|> > http://www.renewamerica.us/readings/keyes_essay.htm
:|>
:|> Fred, you still don't seem to get it. Allison has handed down the
:|> authoritative opinion that Keyes is not to be accepted as a scholar.
:|
:|You're the one who isn't getting it. Thomas Jefferson essentially
:|wrote that a PhD is not required to interpret the Constitution:
LOL.
I laugh for two reasons.
(1) Who you are replying to
if you don't know you should do some research and find out.
(2) Jefferson wrote a lot of things, some of which were just plain
incorrect.
:| Thomas Jefferson essentially
:|wrote that a PhD is not required to interpret the Constitution:
Essentially? Hmmmmm a cute way of saying in your personal opinion
However, Jefferson has studied law and had been a practicing attorney
Therefore, he must have felt a study of laws was important when trying to
interpret law
*********************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.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 · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
For people in Hampton Roads area of Virginia you are also invited to join
NORFOLK/VA. B. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE MEETUP GROUP
http://churchandstate.meetup.com/47/
Virginia Chapter Americans United for Separation of Church and State
http://au-va.org/
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
This site is a member of the following web rings:
Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
American History WebRing--&--The History Ring
Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring
Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of Church and State: A First Amendment Primer |
17 Aug 2005 07:54:40 AM |
|
|
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
:|You're merely perpetuating the lie that the Founding Fathers had
:|decided on absolute church/state separation. Again, the 10th Amendment
:|reserved the power to address religion to the states since the 1st
:|Amendment explicitly prohibited only Congress (the federal government)
:|from having this power. The [ Radical Religious Right Theocratic
:|propagandistic ] essay below explains this:
:|
:|http://www.renewamerica.us/readings/keyes_essay.htm
:|
*********************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.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 · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
For people in Hampton Roads area of Virginia you are also invited to join
NORFOLK/VA. B. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE MEETUP GROUP
http://churchandstate.meetup.com/47/
Virginia Chapter Americans United for Separation of Church and State
http://au-va.org/
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
This site is a member of the following web rings:
Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
American History WebRing--&--The History Ring
Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring
Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of Church and State: A First Amendment Primer |
17 Aug 2005 07:55:06 AM |
|
|
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
:|this power to the states. The [ Radical Religious Right Theocratic
:|propagandistic ] essay referenced below explains how the
:|1st and 10th Amendments work to delegate and prohibit powers between
:|the federal and state governments:
:|
:|http://www.renewamerica.us/readings/keyes_essay.htm
:|
*********************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.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 · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
For people in Hampton Roads area of Virginia you are also invited to join
NORFOLK/VA. B. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE MEETUP GROUP
http://churchandstate.meetup.com/47/
Virginia Chapter Americans United for Separation of Church and State
http://au-va.org/
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
This site is a member of the following web rings:
Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
American History WebRing--&--The History Ring
Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring
Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of Church and State: A First Amendment Primer |
11 Aug 2005 07:31:19 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Separation of Church and State: A First Amendment Primer
http://www.adl.org/issue_religious_freedom/print.asp
[ excerpt]
Separation: Good for Government, Good for Religion
The right to freedom of religion is so central to American democracy that
it was enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution along with
other fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of the
press.
In order to guarantee an atmosphere of absolute religious liberty, this
country's founders also mandated the strict separation of church and state.
The First Ammendment to the Constitution taken by itself
is a fraud though. Since the Press invented it.
Since the Constitutional Framers penned the bill
of rights, not the First Ammendment.
Given that it's doesn't guarantee anything about seperation
of church and state.
Since it's only reiterates the obvious that European Churchs
are separated from American states.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of Church and State: A First Amendment Primer |
13 Aug 2005 02:14:53 PM |
|
|
"zzbunker@netscape.net" <zzbunker@netscape.net> wrote:
:|buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
:|> Separation of Church and State: A First Amendment Primer
:|> http://www.adl.org/issue_religious_freedom/print.asp
:|> [ excerpt]
:|> Separation: Good for Government, Good for Religion
:|>
:|> The right to freedom of religion is so central to American democracy that
:|> it was enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution along with
:|> other fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of the
:|> press.
:|>
:|> In order to guarantee an atmosphere of absolute religious liberty, this
:|> country's founders also mandated the strict separation of church and state.
:|
:| The First Ammendment to the Constitution taken by itself
:| is a fraud though. Since the Press invented it.
:| Since the Constitutional Framers penned the bill
:| of rights, not the First Ammendment.
:| Given that it's doesn't guarantee anything about seperation
:| of church and state.
:| Since it's only reiterates the obvious that European Churchs
:| are separated from American states.
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.
*****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of Church and State: A First Amendment Primer |
11 Aug 2005 03:28:15 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Separation of Church and State: A First Amendment Primer
http://www.adl.org/issue_religious_freedom/print.asp
[ excerpt]
Separation: Good for Government, Good for Religion
The right to freedom of religion is so central to American democracy that
it was enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution along with
other fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of the
press.
In order to guarantee an atmosphere of absolute religious liberty, this
country's founders also mandated the strict separation of church and state.
Largely because of this prohibition against government regulation or
endorsement of religion, diverse faiths have flourished and thrived in
America since the founding of the republic. Indeed, James Madison, the
father of the United States Constitution, once observed that "the
[religious] devotion of the people has been manifestly increased by the
total separation of the church from the state."
Absolute church/state separation is a lie.
If the Founding Fathers had decided on absolute church/state
separation, they'd have simply used the word "absolute" in the
Constitution somewhere. The problem is that activist judges, atheists
and separationists are so phobic that Christians are going to try to
force everybody go to church on Sunday that they are forcing absolute
church/state separation into the establishment clause of the 1st
Amendment. But if people would just get passed the 1st Amendment with
respect to discussing the government's power to address religion,
they'd see that the 10th Amendment reserved unique powers for the
states. And since the 1st Amendment obviously prohibits only Congress
from making laws pertaining to religion, the 10th Amendment delegates
this power to the states. The essay referenced below explains how the
1st and 10th Amendments work to delegate and prohibit powers between
the federal and state governments:
http://www.renewamerica.us/readings/keyes_essay.htm
Also consider that even Thomas Jefferson reflected that the states had
been given the care of our religious freedoms:
"Our citizens have wisely formed themselves into one nation as to
others and several States as among themselves. To the united nation
belong our external and mutual relations; to each State, severally, the
care of our persons, our property, our reputation and religious
freedom." --Thomas Jefferson: To Rhode Island Assembly, 1801. ME 10:262
And if people would go farther than the 10th Amendment, they'd see that
the 14th Amendment protects everybody's rights as US citizens from the
power of the states. So bully pulpit "Christian" preachers cannot
pirate the power of the states to address religion to force everybody
to go to church on Sunday, for example.
On the other hand, the states should be able to use their power to
address religion to at least permit public schools to lead students in
discussions concerning the pros and cons of evolution, creationism and
intelligent design (irreducible complexity) in non-mandatory classes.
Americans are still among the most religious people in the world. Yet the
government plays almost no role in promoting, endorsing or funding
religious institutions or religious beliefs. Free from government control
-- and without government assistance -- religious values, literature,
traditions and holidays permeate the lives of our citizens and, in their
diverse ways, form an integral part of our national culture. By maintaining
the wall separating church and state, we can guarantee the continued
vitality of religion in American life.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of Church and State: A First Amendment Primer |
16 Aug 2005 05:15:24 AM |
|
|
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
:|Absolute church/state separation is a lie.
Separation of church and state, the principle, where can it be found, or
can it be found in the Constitution?
One might consider the following:
====================================================================
Directly, the unamended constitution, Article VI, Section III
" but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any
office or public trust under the United States."
-----------------------------
"The remaining part of the clause declares, that 'no religious test shall
ever be required, as a qualification to any office or public trust, under
the United States.' This clause is not introduced merely for the purpose
of satisfying the scruples of many respectable persons, who feel an
invincible repugnance to any test or affirmation. It had a higher object;
to cut off for ever every pretence of any alliance between church and
state in the national government. The framers of the constitution were
fully sensible of the dangers from this source, marked out in history of
other ages and countries; and not wholly unknown to our own. They knew,
that bigotry was unceasingly vigilant in its own stratagems, to secure to
itself an exclusive ascendancy over the human mind; and that intolerance
was ever ready to arm itself with all the terrors of civil power to
exterminate those, who doubted its dogmas, or resisted its infallibility."
(COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, by Supreme Court
Justice Joseph Story, Vol III, (1833) pg 705)
------------------------------------------------------
Then, indirectly the entire document (unamended constitution) as a whole.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Thomas Tucker on Church and State, September 1789
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/basic2a.htm
Madison's vetoes: Some of The First Official Meanings Assigned to The
Establishment Clause
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/madvetos.htm
James Madison on Separation of Church and State
Direct references to separation to be found in the writings of James
Madison
----------------------------------------
OCTOBER 1, 1803
Notes for annual message, Oct. 17, 1803: alterations and additions, etc [1]
(3) after "assure"-are proposed "in due season, and under prudent
arrangements, important aids to our Treasury, as well as," an ample etc.
Quere: if the two or three succeeding paragraphs be not more
adapted to the separate and subsequent communication, if adopted as above
suggested.
(4) For the first sentence, may be substituted "In the territory between
the Mississippi and the Ohio another valuable acquisition has been made by
a treaty etc."[3.] As it stands, it does not sufficiently distinguish the
nature of the one acquisition from that of the other, and seems to imply
that the acquisition from France was wholly on the other side of the
Mississippi
May it not be as well to omit the detail of the stipulated
considerations, and particularly that of the Roman Catholic Pastor. The
jealousy of some may see in it a principle, not according with the
exemption of Religion from Civil power. In the Indian Treaty it will be
less noticed than in a President's speech.[4.]
FOOTNOTES:
[1.] For TJ's third annual message to Congress, Oct. 17, 1803, see Ford,
VIII, pp. 266-7)
[3.] TI's message announced the acquisition of territory by treaty from the
Kaskaskia Indians; see
Ford, VIII, pp. 269-70.
[4.] TJ accepted JM's suggestion to omit any discussion of Indian treaty
requirements to maintain a Roman Catholic priest, leaving the stipulations
in the treaty to "the competence of both
houses.... as soon as the senate shall have advised its ratification"; see
ibid.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, Washington, Oct.
1, 1803, Notes for annual message, Oct. 17, 1803: alterations and
additions, etc.[1.],
The Republic of Letters, the Correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and
James Madison, 1776-1826, Edited by James Morton Smith, Vol. II, 1790
-1804, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, London, (1995) pp 1297-98)
---------------------------------------------------
JUNE 3, 1811
"To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I
have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the
Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem
Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical
distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the
purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States,
I could not have other wise discharged my duty on the
occasion which presented itself"
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June
3, 1811. Letters And Other Writings of James Madison Fourth President Of
The United States In Four Volumes Published By the Order Of Congress,
Vol..II, J. B. Lippincott & Co., Philadelphia, (1865) pp 511-512)
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARCH 2, 1819
"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated
hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions
with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of
the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly
increased by the total separation of the church from the State."
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excert of a letter to Robert Walsh from James
Madison. MARCH 2, 1819 Letters and Other writings of James Madison, in
Four Volumes, Published by Order of Congress. VOL. III, J. B. Lippincott &
Co. Philadelphia, (1865), pp 121-126. James Madison on Religious Liberty,
Robert S.Alley, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N.Y. (1985) pp 82-83)
----------------------------------------------------------
1817-1833
"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and Gov't in the
Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by
Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents' already furnished
in their short history"
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excerpt from Madison's Detached Memoranda. This
document was discovered in 1946 among the papers of William Cabell Rives, a
biographer of Madison. Scholars date these observations in Madison's hand
sometime between 1817 and 1832. The entire document was published by
Elizabeth Fleet in the William and Mary Quarterly of October 1946.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
JULY 10, 1822
"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation
between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have
no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done,
in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity
the less they are mixed together"
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excerpt of letter to Edward Livingston from James
Madison, July 10, 1822. Letters and Other writings of James Madison, in
Four Volumes, Published by Order of Congress. VOL. III, J. B. Lippincott &
Co. Philadelphia, (1865), pp 273-276. James Madison on Religious Liberty,
Robert S.Alley, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N.Y. (1985) pp 82-83)
--------------------------------------------------------------
SEPTEMBER 1833
"I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to
trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil
authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on
unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other
or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded
against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way
whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting
each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others".
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Letter written by James Madison to Rev. Jasper
Adams, September, 1833.Writings of James Madison, edited by Gaillard Hunt,
[not sure what the volume number is but have enough information presented
here to locate the letter] microform Z1236.L53, pp 484-488. )
*********************************************************************
followed by
Some Thoughts on Religion and Law
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/bthot-lr.htm"
:| . . . The [ Radical Religious Right propaganda ] essay referenced below explains how the
:|1st and 10th Amendments work to delegate and prohibit powers between
:|the federal and state governments:
:|
:|http://www.renewamerica.us/readings/keyes_essay.htm
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.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 · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
For people in Hampton Roads area of Virginia you are also invited to join
NORFOLK/VA. B. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE MEETUP GROUP
http://churchandstate.meetup.com/47/
Virginia Chapter Americans United for Separation of Church and State
http://au-va.org/
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
This site is a member of the following web rings:
Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
American History WebRing--&--The History Ring
Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring
Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of Church and State: A First Amendment Primer |
12 Aug 2005 12:27:38 AM |
|
|
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Absolute church/state separation is a lie.
If the Founding Fathers had decided on absolute church/state
separation, they'd have simply used the word "absolute" in the
Constitution somewhere. The problem is that activist judges, atheists
and separationists are so phobic that Christians are going to try to
force everybody go to church on Sunday that they are forcing absolute
church/state separation into the establishment clause of the 1st
Amendment. But if people would just get passed the 1st Amendment with
respect to discussing the government's power to address religion,
they'd see that the 10th Amendment reserved unique powers for the
states. And since the 1st Amendment obviously prohibits only Congress
from making laws pertaining to religion, the 10th Amendment delegates
this power to the states. The essay referenced below explains how the
1st and 10th Amendments work to delegate and prohibit powers between
the federal and state governments:
http://www.renewamerica.us/readings/keyes_essay.htm
Also consider that even Thomas Jefferson reflected that the states had
been given the care of our religious freedoms:
"Our citizens have wisely formed themselves into one nation as to
others and several States as among themselves. To the united nation
belong our external and mutual relations; to each State, severally, the
care of our persons, our property, our reputation and religious
freedom." --Thomas Jefferson: To Rhode Island Assembly, 1801. ME 10:262
That same Thomas Jefferson also wrote, for his own state, a religious
freedom amendment that is more strongly worded than the 1st amendment.
He perhaps did not favor the federal government forcing some states
that had established churches to disestablish, but he most clearly
felt that such establishments were wrong, and freedom from such
establishments to be a fundamental right (hence covered under the 9th
amendment if not the 1st).
And if people would go farther than the 10th Amendment, they'd see that
the 14th Amendment protects everybody's rights as US citizens from the
power of the states. So bully pulpit "Christian" preachers cannot
pirate the power of the states to address religion to force everybody
to go to church on Sunday, for example.
Or to force government schools to teach religious dogma, or to force
government to pay for religious choices.
On the other hand, the states should be able to use their power to
address religion to at least permit public schools to lead students in
discussions concerning the pros and cons of evolution, creationism and
intelligent design (irreducible complexity) in non-mandatory classes.
There are public schools that have comparative religion classes, and
such a topic probably could be discussed in a comparative religion
class if it were carefully done. But that has NEVER been the issue
with regard to the teaching of evolution/creationism/intelligent
design - the issue has been whether anything other than evolution
should be taught in the MANDATORY sciences classes, not in
non-mandatory cultural studies.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "t1gercat" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of Church and State: A First Amendment Primer |
18 Aug 2005 11:56:11 PM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Absolute church/state separation is a lie.
If the Founding Fathers had decided on absolute church/state
separation, they'd have simply used the word "absolute" in the
Constitution somewhere. The problem is that activist judges, atheists
and separationists are so phobic that Christians are going to try to
force everybody go to church on Sunday that they are forcing absolute
church/state separation into the establishment clause of the 1st
Amendment. But if people would just get passed the 1st Amendment with
respect to discussing the government's power to address religion,
they'd see that the 10th Amendment reserved unique powers for the
states. And since the 1st Amendment obviously prohibits only Congress
from making laws pertaining to religion, the 10th Amendment delegates
this power to the states. The essay referenced below explains how the
1st and 10th Amendments work to delegate and prohibit powers between
the federal and state governments:
http://www.renewamerica.us/readings/keyes_essay.htm
Also consider that even Thomas Jefferson reflected that the states had
been given the care of our religious freedoms:
"Our citizens have wisely formed themselves into one nation as to
others and several States as among themselves. To the united nation
belong our external and mutual relations; to each State, severally, the
care of our persons, our property, our reputation and religious
freedom." --Thomas Jefferson: To Rhode Island Assembly, 1801. ME 10:262
That same Thomas Jefferson also wrote, for his own state, a religious
freedom amendment that is more strongly worded than the 1st amendment.
He perhaps did not favor the federal government forcing some states
that had established churches to disestablish, but he most clearly
felt that such establishments were wrong, and freedom from such
establishments to be a fundamental right (hence covered under the 9th
amendment if not the 1st).
And if people would go farther than the 10th Amendment, they'd see that
the 14th Amendment protects everybody's rights as US citizens from the
power of the states. So bully pulpit "Christian" preachers cannot
pirate the power of the states to address religion to force everybody
to go to church on Sunday, for example.
Or to force government schools to teach religious dogma, or to force
government to pay for religious choices.
On the other hand, the states should be able to use their power to
address religion to at least permit public schools to lead students in
discussions concerning the pros and cons of evolution, creationism and
intelligent design (irreducible complexity) in non-mandatory classes.
There are public schools that have comparative religion classes, and
such a topic probably could be discussed in a comparative religion
class if it were carefully done. But that has NEVER been the issue
with regard to the teaching of evolution/creationism/intelligent
design - the issue has been whether anything other than evolution
should be taught in the MANDATORY sciences classes, not in
non-mandatory cultural studies.
There's a challenge I've hurdled at least 20 times to our religious
bretheren who argue that the Constitution does not provide for the
separation of Church and State, "Where do you draw the line?" Would it
be OK for children to be exposed to a short reading from the Bible
every day? A prayer? Suppose a Mormon teacher wanted to read from the
Book of Mormon or the writings of Brigham Young? Suppose a Lutheran
favored the more anti-semitic sentiments in Luther's "Table Talk?"
Suppose a Catholic wanted public school children to attend Mass on Ash
Wednesday. Those who don't chose to participate, don't have to pray;
they could just sit there. Suppose an Islamic teacher wanted to bow to
Mecca 5 times a day? Where do you draw the line and to what source do
you go to find that line? Don't just say the founders never intended
separation. That tells us nothing. Tell us precisely what they did
intend, then, and where the line is to be drawn.
I've never gotten an answer.
Wexford
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of Church and State: A First Amendment Primer |
11 Aug 2005 11:34:40 PM |
|
|
In episode <1123792095.748346.313200@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, fred
burst into the room and exclaimed:
If the Founding Fathers had decided on absolute church/state separation,
they'd have simply used the word "absolute" in the Constitution somewhere.
No, *you're lying. The man who wrote the first draft of the 1st Amendment
and saw the amendment through to its present form described what they had
accomplished as "perfect separation."
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of Church and State: A First Amendment Primer |
18 Aug 2005 11:37:31 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 23:34:40 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
In episode <1123792095.748346.313200@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, fred
burst into the room and exclaimed:
If the Founding Fathers had decided on absolute church/state separation,
they'd have simply used the word "absolute" in the Constitution somewhere.
No, *you're lying. The man who wrote the first draft of the 1st Amendment
and saw the amendment through to its present form described what they had
accomplished as "perfect separation."
Of course the ignorant and dishonest sack of Christian dog *****'s
lying. It's what these assholes do best.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of Church and Plate: A First Amendment Primer |
16 Aug 2005 02:36:11 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 15:28, Perp the Twirp drooled:
Absolute church/state separation is a lie.
As a matter of present policy by our ***** President, you're, of
course, totally right. Far, far right.
If the Founding Fathers had decided on absolute church/state
separation, they'd have simply used the word "absolute" in the
Constitution somewhere.
The founding fathers missed a few hundred years of the United
States. Even for someone who is a sociopathic liar such as you (and
yourin) is going to have a hard time finding any of the founding
fathers still alive.
Come on, Kebbie Bozo - as long as you're pimping for Bush and Keyes,
why don't you tell us what (g)God(s) has/have been saying to you in
your visions lately?
And as an anonymous prodigitaterlanierus, you, of course, are going
to raise your prices for cruising the palisade drumming up business
for your "joy boys", are you not?
Do you arrange "twofers" or do you have curry out?
Every rex deserves another, dontchaknow.
++ gray
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of Church and State: A First Amendment Primer |
11 Aug 2005 01:50:37 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Separation of Church and State: A First Amendment Primer
http://www.adl.org/issue_religious_freedom/print.asp
[ excerpt]
Separation: Good for Government, Good for Religion
The right to freedom of religion is so central to American democracy that
it was enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution along with
other fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of the
press.
In order to guarantee an atmosphere of absolute religious liberty, this
country's founders also mandated the strict separation of church and state.
Largely because of this prohibition against government regulation or
endorsement of religion, diverse faiths have flourished and thrived in
America since the founding of the republic. Indeed, James Madison, the
father of the United States Constitution, once observed that "the
[religious] devotion of the people has been manifestly increased by the
total separation of the church from the state."
You're merely perpetuating the lie that the Founding Fathers had
decided on absolute church/state separation. Again, the 10th Amendment
reserved the power to address religion to the states since the 1st
Amendment explicitly prohibited only Congress (the federal government)
from having this power. The essay below explains this:
http://www.renewamerica.us/readings/keyes_essay.htm
Americans are still among the most religious people in the world. Yet the
government plays almost no role in promoting, endorsing or funding
religious institutions or religious beliefs. Free from government control
-- and without government assistance -- religious values, literature,
traditions and holidays permeate the lives of our citizens and, in their
diverse ways, form an integral part of our national culture. By maintaining
the wall separating church and state, we can guarantee the continued
vitality of religion in American life.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of Church and State: A First Amendment Primer |
16 Aug 2005 05:07:42 AM |
|
|
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
:|You're merely perpetuating the lie that the Founding Fathers had
:|decided on absolute church/state separation. Again, the 10th Amendment
:|reserved the power to address religion to the states since the 1st
:|Amendment explicitly prohibited only Congress (the federal government)
:|from having this power. The [ Radical Religiious Right propaganda ] essay below explains this:
:|
:|http://www.renewamerica.us/readings/keyes_essay.htm
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.
*****************************************************************
The troll is still trolling
Notice his sources. the Radical Religious Right Propagandist and wanna be
Federal Office holder Alan L. Keyes and himself
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.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 · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
For people in Hampton Roads area of Virginia you are also invited to join
NORFOLK/VA. B. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE MEETUP GROUP
http://churchandstate.meetup.com/47/
Virginia Chapter Americans United for Separation of Church and State
http://au-va.org/
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
This site is a member of the following web rings:
Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
American History WebRing--&--The History Ring
Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring
Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of Church and State: A First Amendment Primer |
16 Aug 2005 02:22:14 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 13:50, anonymous poster wrote::
You're merely perpetuating the lie that the Founding Fathers had
decided on absolute church/state separation.
You forgot your "proof".
Again, the 10th Amendment
reserved the power to address religion to the states since the 1st
Amendment explicitly prohibited only Congress (the federal government)
from having this power.
Yes, and, then, along came came the slavers who were responsible for
the fourteenth amendment - as well as a few others - and - poof! -
gods became simply a leisure time activity except among the
priest/preacher class who make [okay, "make" might be a mite bit
complimentary] their living by combining power-trips and
money-begging.
The essay below explains this:
http://www.renewamerica.us/readings/keyes_essay.htm
Oh, yeah, right.
A failed politician and substitute for the "people's drug addict"
and just another panderer taking the lower classes for a ride in his
car-car.
Gray Shockley
-----------------------------------
Woody, dontchaknow.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "VRWC5" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of Church and State: A First Amendment Primer |
11 Aug 2005 03:47:22 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 13:59:23 -0400, wrote:
Separation of Church and State: A First Amendment Primer
http://www.adl.org/issue_religious_freedom/print.asp
[ excerpt]
Separation: Good for Government, Good for Religion
The right to freedom of religion is so central to American democracy that
it was enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution along with
other fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of the
press.
In order to guarantee an atmosphere of absolute religious liberty, this
country's founders also mandated the strict separation of church and state.
UTTERLY FALSE! They intended that there could never be a STATE
MANDATED religion like they had in England -- which is EXACTLY what
they should have done -- nothing more, nothing less.
Largely because of this prohibition against government regulation or
endorsement of religion, diverse faiths have flourished and thrived in
America since the founding of the republic. Indeed, James Madison, the
father of the United States Constitution, once observed that "the
[religious] devotion of the people has been manifestly increased by the
total separation of the church from the state."
And in that statement he was saying that the State is prohibited from
REQUIRING that ANYONE pay tithe to or attend a particular religion. He
was NOT saying that religious acknowledgements could never be
displayed on public property.
Americans are still among the most religious people in the world. Yet the
government plays almost no role in promoting, endorsing or funding
religious institutions or religious beliefs. Free from government control
-- and without government assistance -- religious values, literature,
traditions and holidays permeate the lives of our citizens and, in their
diverse ways, form an integral part of our national culture. By maintaining
the wall separating church and state, we can guarantee the continued
vitality of religion in American life.
There is only ONE thing we must do to ensure this religious freedom:
forever prevent government from IMPOSING a particular State religion
-- period. Avoiding the coercive imposition of a particular religion
has NOTHING to do with a Nativity scene on the local courthouse lawn
-- since such thing impose nothing on anyone.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of Church and State: A First Amendment Primer |
16 Aug 2005 02:43:55 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 15:47:22 -0500, VRWC5 wrote:
UTTERLY FALSE! They intended that there could never be a STATE
MANDATED religion like they had in England -- which is EXACTLY what
they should have done -- nothing more, nothing less.
Oh, poor Mikie. Poor, poor Mikie.
You're yelling & screaming and pooshing and creaming but all your
blather is useless as - without citation - you're just full of
transue and poopsnew.
Poor, poor Mikie. A sociopathic vrwc23 without a bridle but for
her/his/its "bit".
Is it true that your husband actually wanted you to have the baby?
Goodness, gracious me! /gray/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of Church and State: A First Amendment Primer |
13 Aug 2005 02:12:34 PM |
|
|
VRWC5 <nospam@none.com> wrote:
:|On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 13:59:23 -0400, wrote:
:|
:|>Separation of Church and State: A First Amendment Primer
:|>http://www.adl.org/issue_religious_freedom/print.asp
:|>[ excerpt]
:|>Separation: Good for Government, Good for Religion
:|>
:|>The right to freedom of religion is so central to American democracy that
:|>it was enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution along with
:|>other fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of the
:|>press.
:|>
:|>In order to guarantee an atmosphere of absolute religious liberty, this
:|>country's founders also mandated the strict separation of church and state.
:|
:|UTTERLY FALSE! They intended that there could never be a STATE
:|MANDATED religion like they had in England -- which is EXACTLY what
:|they should have done -- nothing more, nothing less.
Would you mind providing quotes from the various founders that states this?
.
|
|
|
| User: "VRWC5" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Separation of Church and State: A First Amendment Primer |
19 Oct 2005 01:19:41 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 15:12:34 -0400, wrote:
VRWC5 <nospam@none.com> wrote:
:|On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 13:59:23 -0400, wrote:
:|
:|>Separation of Church and State: A First Amendment Primer
:|>http://www.adl.org/issue_religious_freedom/print.asp
:|>[ excerpt]
:|>Separation: Good for Government, Good for Religion
:|>
:|>The right to freedom of religion is so central to American democracy that
:|>it was enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution along with
:|>other fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of the
:|>press.
:|>
:|>In order to guarantee an atmosphere of absolute religious liberty, this
:|>country's founders also mandated the strict separation of church and state.
:|
:|UTTERLY FALSE! They intended that there could never be a STATE
:|MANDATED religion like they had in England -- which is EXACTLY what
:|they should have done -- nothing more, nothing less.
Would you mind providing quotes from the various founders that states this?
It never ceases to amaze decent folks how little liberals know about
our nation's early history. I read this stuff over 30 years ago and
still have the works in my library. However, since showing you the
actual quotes would not have the slightest value to me, I'll challenge
you to do something new -- something that will serve your need for
facts: Go to the Thomas Server at the Library of Congress and do your
own research.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of Church and State: A First Amendment Primer |
19 Oct 2005 08:37:36 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 01:19:41 -0500, in alt.atheism
VRWC5 <nospam@none.com> wrote in
<l7pbl1ldthdfggjsgsqnithosut4hh4sd5@4ax.com>:
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 15:12:34 -0400, wrote:
VRWC5 <nospam@none.com> wrote:
:|On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 13:59:23 -0400, wrote:
:|
:|>Separation of Church and State: A First Amendment Primer
:|>http://www.adl.org/issue_religious_freedom/print.asp
:|>[ excerpt]
:|>Separation: Good for Government, Good for Religion
:|>
:|>The right to freedom of religion is so central to American democracy that
:|>it was enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution along with
:|>other fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of the
:|>press.
:|>
:|>In order to guarantee an atmosphere of absolute religious liberty, this
:|>country's founders also mandated the strict separation of church and state.
:|
:|UTTERLY FALSE! They intended that there could never be a STATE
:|MANDATED religion like they had in England -- which is EXACTLY what
:|they should have done -- nothing more, nothing less.
Would you mind providing quotes from the various founders that states this?
It never ceases to amaze decent folks how little liberals know about
our nation's early history. I read this stuff over 30 years ago and
still have the works in my library. However, since showing you the
actual quotes would not have the slightest value to me, I'll challenge
you to do something new -- something that will serve your need for
facts: Go to the Thomas Server at the Library of Congress and do your
own research.
In other words, you have no idea if your claim is correct or not, but
you don't think it is, otherwise, you would have provided support for
your claims yourself.
By the way, a few states still had established churches at the time the
constitution was adopted -- the First Amendment only applied to the
federal government at the time.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of Church and State: A First Amendment Primer |
20 Oct 2005 06:09:39 AM |
|
|
VRWC5 <nospam@none.com> wrote:
:|On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 15:12:34 -0400, wrote:
:|
:|>VRWC5 <nospam@none.com> wrote:
:|>
:|>>:|On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 13:59:23 -0400, wrote:
:|>>:|
:|>>:|>Separation of Church and State: A First Amendment Primer
:|>>:|>http://www.adl.org/issue_religious_freedom/print.asp
:|>>:|>[ excerpt]
:|>>:|>Separation: Good for Government, Good for Religion
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|>The right to freedom of religion is so central to American democracy that
:|>>:|>it was enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution along with
:|>>:|>other fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of the
:|>>:|>press.
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|>In order to guarantee an atmosphere of absolute religious liberty, this
:|>>:|>country's founders also mandated the strict separation of church and state.
:|>>:|
:|>>:|UTTERLY FALSE! They intended that there could never be a STATE
:|>>:|MANDATED religion like they had in England -- which is EXACTLY what
:|>>:|they should have done -- nothing more, nothing less.
:|>
:|>
:|>Would you mind providing quotes from the various founders that states this?
:|
:|It never ceases to amaze decent folks how little liberals know about
:|our nation's early history. I read this stuff over 30 years ago and
:|still have the works in my library. However, since showing you the
:|actual quotes would not have the slightest value to me, I'll challenge
:|you to do something new -- something that will serve your need for
:|facts: Go to the Thomas Server at the Library of Congress and do your
:|own research.
Translating the above smoke blowing the dude is saying he can't provide the
requested supporting evidence, or put another way he can't back up his
unsubstantiated claim but he wants to pretend he isn't really saying that.
He is trying to hide he got caught making claims he can't back up.
Now as to my own research, dude, I've done it, and I can back up what I
have posted and do post.
Here dude
:|>>:|UTTERLY FALSE! They intended that there could never be a STATE
:|>>:|MANDATED religion like they had in England -- which is EXACTLY what
:|>>:|they should have done -- nothing more, nothing less.
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.
*****************************************************************
Would you mind providing quotes from the various founders that states this?
The following shows I have done my research since I put the following
together
and I put it together from the following and more found in PART II
PARTI
**************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
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 · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
PART I I
You will find some, just a part of the source material used for my posts,
replies and articles in the following. In most cases the information is
provided in two formats, MS WORD or COREL WORDPERFECT.
Thus it is provided in a form that about 95% of the people can use
The following is not ever close to being a complete list. It hasn't been
updated in several years.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/files/
PRIMARY SOURCE HISTORICAL MATERIAL
book project index.doc MsWord Document 451 KB
Mar 20, 2005
book project index.wpd My book project (ongoing) 233 KB
Feb 17, 2005
******************************************************************
BOOKS, LEGAL AND HISTORICAL AND PRIMARY SOURCE MATERIAL
book33-4.doc MS Word document 586 KB
Mar 20, 2005
book33-4.wpd books historical papers C&S 153 KB
Feb 12, 2005
*******************************************************************
COURT OPINIONS LATE 1700s TO PRESENT
State and Federal
case index.doc MsWord Document 256 KB
Mar 20, 2005
case index.wpd church state court cases 1700s to present 52 KB
Feb 17, 2005
*****************************************************************
JOURNAL ARTICLES
oneart5.doc
MS Word Document 272 KB
Mar 20, 2005
oneart5.wpd
Some of C&S journal articles I have here 87 KB
Feb 12, 2005
*******************************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tecknomage" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of Church and State: A First Amendment Primer |
12 Aug 2005 06:25:28 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 13:59:23 -0400, wrote:
Separation of Church and State: A First Amendment Primer
http://www.adl.org/issue_religious_freedom/print.asp
[ excerpt]
Separation: Good for Government, Good for Religion
The right to freedom of religion is so central to American democracy that
it was enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution along with
other fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of the
press.
In order to guarantee an atmosphere of absolute religious liberty, this
country's founders also mandated the strict separation of church and state.
Largely because of this prohibition against government regulation or
endorsement of religion, diverse faiths have flourished and thrived in
America since the founding of the republic. Indeed, James Madison, the
father of the United States Constitution, once observed that "the
[religious] devotion of the people has been manifestly increased by the
total separation of the church from the state."
Americans are still among the most religious people in the world. Yet the
government plays almost no role in promoting, endorsing or funding
religious institutions or religious beliefs. Free from government control
-- and without government assistance -- religious values, literature,
traditions and holidays permeate the lives of our citizens and, in their
diverse ways, form an integral part of our national culture. By maintaining
the wall separating church and state, we can guarantee the continued
vitality of religion in American life.
The above not withstanding, our Founding Fathers were very concerned
with protecting _individual_ rights, in the overall view. They
believed in what our Declaration of Independance said about Human
Rights (which are not "given" by the state, you are born with them)
and protecting the individual against the majority.
One has only to read various writings (letters, Federalist Papers,
etc.) to see their recognition of people's dedication and passion for
whatever religion they believed in could lead to religious bigotry.
It is because of this that they could see that when religion and
government are mixed, it could lead to suppression of the individual
human right to practice their own religion by the majority, government
supported/approved, religion. We should also note that many of the
early settlers of our country came here to escape religious
persecution in their "old" country.
The doctrine of separation of church and state _is_ protection of
individual right to practice religion. The "state" is not to show
preference or support for any one religion or religious practice over
another.
It has not been lost on my view, and others, that the people
supporting issues such as "school prayer" are vastly Christians. What
they actually support is _Christian_ prayer in public schools. They
do not understand or believe that prayer in public schools is NOT
band. What _is_ band is a representatives of the state (teachers,
etc.) are not to show support for any one religion and leading a class
of students in Christian prayer would be just that, showing support of
Christianity over other religious practices. The test of individual
religious freedom is NOT having to participate in another's religious
practice if you choose. This is why prayer over a public school
announcing system is also wrong, everyone in earshout doesn't get the
choice NOT to participate.
==== Tecknomage ====
Religious practice is an individual's right, *not* a right
of the majority to be imposed on other individuals.
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
