| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
21 Aug 2006 05:35:42 AM |
| Object: |
Simpson v Chesterfield county )Marsn v Chambers ) |
http://www.sunnetworks.net/~ggarman/simpsonvchesterfield.html
[excerpt]
SIMPSON V. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY (MARSH V. CHAMBERS)
by Gene Garman
If there were ever a more misguided federal court decision than the April
14, 2005, Fourth Judicial District Simpson v. Chesterfield (292 F. Supp.
2d. 805) opinion, it is its U.S. Supreme Court parent, Marsh v. Chambers
(463 U.S. 783), 1983. The following review of Simpson will describe what
Marsh has birthed: the unconstitutional principle that Federal Courts of
the United States can effectively rewrite the Constitution, rather than
abide by the words and principles of the Constitution as drafted by the
Founding Fathers in 1787 and amended by the members of the First Congress
in 1789, subsequently approved in 1788 and 1791 by the people of the United
States through their respective state legislatures.
There is no constitutional principle more clearly stated or more thoroughly
documented by James Madison ("Father of the Constitution" and co-chair of
the six member joint Senate-House conference committee which drafted the
final version of the First Amendment) than "separation between Religion and
Government in the Constitution of the United States" (William and Mary
Quarterly, 3:555). Yet, in 2005, three Federal Court Judges of the Fourth
Circuit not only rejected James Madison, they ignored the strict
constructionist wording of the religion commandments of the Constitution.
The three judges unlawfully prostrated themselves before an illegitimate
offspring begat by the Supreme Court of the United States, Marsh v.
Chambers.
The words of the Constitution mean exactly what they say. How dare any
Judge or Justice change them. It is a "religious" test which shall not be
required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United
States (Art. 6., Sec. 3.). It is "religion" (First Amendment) which shall
not be established by the coercive power of law or government at any level
(thanks to the Fourteenth Amendment), whether federal, state, county, city,
township, or school district.
The Fourth Circuit Court openly admits the Chesterfield County, Virginia,
Board of Supervisors "adopted a policy under which some of its [official]
public meetings include a non-sectarian invocation." With a straight face,
the same Court denied the Board's established invocation had anything to do
with the word written in the no Establishment Clause, that is, "religion."
The Fourth Circuit Court concurred with the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia which wrote: "The avowed purpose of the
invocation is simply that of a brief pronouncement of simple values
presumably intended to solemnize the occasion. ... The context, and to a
degree, the content of the invocation segment is governed by established
[ESTABLISHED] guidelines by which the Board [THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY] may regulate the content of what is or is not
expressed ...." REALLY? Even though "it is no part of the business of
government to compose official prayers for any group of the American
people" ((Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 425)?
The Fourth Circuit Court actually argues the 1962 Engel v. Vitale ruling
"for any group of the American people" does not apply to adults! What part
of "any group of the American people" does the Fourth Circuit Court not
understand? Cynthia Simpson should appeal on the basis of obvious judicial
incompetence.
The Fourth Circuit Court writes: "Correctly adhering to Supreme Court
precedent, the [Virginia] district court also found that this issue turns
on the characterization of the invocations as government speech" (1984
government speak?). In spite of its outright distortion in attempting to
justify a ludicrous distinction between "legislative prayer and prayer for
the people" (either way, ³prayer² is religion), the Fourth Circuit Court
admits the invited invocationists come from a collected list of community
"religious leaders." The Fourth Circuit Court has it both ways. The
invocationists are either "religious leaders" or "government"
spokespersons. In this case, are they not both? Cynthia Simpson should
remind the Fourth Circuit Court of what Jesus commanded in Matthew 6:5-6
and then appeal its decision on the basis of obvious judicial dishonesty.
What more can be said of an "activist" and "revisionist" Fourth Circuit
Court which, in direct violation of the Establishment Clause, establishes,
via Simpson, a "civil religion" or "civic faith" through which sectarian
religious leaders invoke, in a "nonsectarian" way, a "divinity" of the
"Judeo-Christian tradition," which does not include American citizens
outside of that oxymoronic description--a Jew is not a Christian and
Judaism is not Christianity; therefore, there is no such tradition. In 1797
President John Adams and the U.S. Senate wrote: "The Government of the
United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian
religion" (Treaty with Tripoli, Treaties, ed. Hunter Miller, 2:365).
Cynthia Simpson should appeal on the basis of judicial ignorance.
More can be said of Marsh, which had the supreme audacity to conclude that
so-called "non-sectarian legislative prayer generally does not violate the
Establishment Clause." To the contrary, it is absurd to assert "legislative
invocations ... seeking divine guidance" are not within the realm of
"religion" or within the prohibition of "no law respecting an establishment
of religion." Reference to the "divine," is, on its face, a matter of
religion, and any law establishing the "divine" or "religion" in any way
whatsoever is in violation of the Establishment Clause. Memo to Federal
Judges and Justices: "religion" means religion, not something less, and "no
law respecting" an establishment of religion means no law respecting an
establishment of "religion."
[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 · 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 US 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)
.. . .
****************************************************************
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
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
