| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
18 Aug 2005 08:28:17 AM |
| Object: |
SOME THOUGHTS ON RELIGION AND LAW |
SOME THOUGHTS ON RELIGION AND LAW
1.The Constitution did not provide any mechanism for the establishment of
religion or for the support of religion
2. Religious tests were the primary mechanism for perpetuating an
established church within the political structure.
3.The Constitution specifically prohibits religious tests or oaths for
office.
THEREFORE, the Constitution created the concept of Separation of Church and
State by providing nothing in the constitution that supports the idea that
Government as Government is allowed to support any religion for any reason
and by specifically prohibiting the primary political mechanism for
supporting religion.
The 1st Amendment may only be interpreted, as being consistent with the
Constitution and the views expressed in the Constitution concerning
religion because:
1.The 1st Amendment was drafted after the Constitution was ratified and was
not designated as repealing any provision in the Constitution.
2. The 1st Amendment does not provide any mechanism for establishing
religion.
3. The 1st Amendment does provide the mechanism to allow an individual as
an individual and not as government to exercise the religion of his or
her choice.
THEREFORE, the 1st Amendment cannot be interpreted to mean that some
governmental entities may support religion in some ways (i.e., vouchers,
welfare programs, etc.).
Once the 1st Amendment prohibited Congress from establishing religion by
prohibiting it from making any law respecting an establishment of religion
- Congress was thereby precluded from passing any kind of appropriation
bill to fund any religious enterprise.
In order for the above to be true, the interpretation of "establishment"
would have to be broad, and in fact the broad interpretation
of"establishment" is supported. First, the O.E.D. (Oxford English
Dictionary) sets out a 1561 definition of establishment as "a means of
establishing; something that strengthens, supports or corroborates. Into
the 1700s - 1800s, "establishment" could be defined as "the establishing
by law (a church, religion, form of worship.) As an example, the O.E.D.
sets out the following: 1886 Earl Selborne Def Ch. Eng. I. iv. 77 All such
relations of the Church to the State as those which are summed up in the
term 'Establishment'.
Second, a broad interpretation of"establishment" is consistent with the
indefinite article that proceeds it. "An"'establishment of religion'
refers to all or any religious establishment --- not to one or some
establishments. In the absence of definiteness, the inclusion of "of one
Christian sect over another" after "Congress shall make no law respecting
an establishment" would be necessary if, as Mr. Barton argues, the 1st
Amendment was all about stamping out competing rivalries between Christian
sects.
In addition, the operative word in the Establishment Clause is RESPECTING.
Respecting an establishment of religion. Any religious institution, be it a
20 member country church or a huge multi-million member international
religion, is an establishment of religion. The government is forbidden from
making any laws, positive or negative that would pertain to an
establishment of religion.
The narrow definition of establishment is that the 1st Amendment meant
only to prevent a "State Church" from being officially sanctioned by the
Government. (In this way, some people have tried to argue that supporting
religious schools doesn't establish anything.) However, such a narrow
reading of "Establishment" would need specific language added to the
Amendment to support it since a plain language reading of the Constitution
clearly shows no bias for (or against) Christianity as opposed to any other
religion or even irreligion. And neither does the 1st Amendment.
I would be remiss if I did not point out that the 10th Amendment is not
implicated in the matter of funding religious schools. The 14th amendment
applying the establishment clause against states
S. Batte Esq.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/bthot-lr.htm
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Research by Jim Allison; written by Jim Allison & Susan Batte
The purpose of the 1st Amendment was not to create the idea or principle of
separation of church and state. Instead, the 1st Amendment reinforced the
meaning of the separation of church and state principle as it was embodied
in the unamended constitution.
In the unamended constitution the government was given no authority in
matters of religion: no authority to aid (promote, help, etc) or hinder
religion. Matters of religion were off limits to the government, but the
drafters of the Constitution were hard pressed to convince the state
ratifying conventions of the built-in constitutional safeguards. Because
some felt that clauses such as the Constitution's "elastic clause" might
enable a future Congress to circumvent the "no power" over religion
directive, Madison drafted and submitted the additional constitutional
constraints that eventually became the religious clauses of the our 1st
Amendment. See also, Hamilton, Alexander, Federalist Papers, #84.
The proper way to begin to understand the religious clauses of the 1st
amendment is to know that they did not create anything, they only
strengthened what had already been created and embodied in the unamended
constitution. The following historical documentation lays the foundation
for this concept.
A. THE CONSTITUTION AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT
Strictly speaking, the American experiment of freedom and separation was
not established in the First Amendment command that " Congress shall make
no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof." That experiment had been launched four years earlier,
when the founders of the republic carefully withheld from the new national
government any power to deal with religion. As Madison said, the national
government had no " jurisdiction " over religion or any " shadow of right
to intermeddle " with it.(1)
The First Amendment, then, did not take away or abridge any power of the
national government; its intent was to make express the absence of power.
The historian George Bancroft, in a letter to Philip Schaff, stated:
Congress from the beginning was as much without the power to
make a law respecting the establishment of religion as it is now that the
amendment has passed.(2)
Charles Beard made the same point:
The Constitution does not confer upon the Federal government
any power whatever to deal with religion in any form or manner. . . . The
First Amendment merely confirms the intention of the framers.(3)
FOOTNOTES
(1) June 12, 1788, James Madison speaking to the delegates
(speaking against Patrick Henry's assertions) at the Virginia
Constitutional ratifying convention, as reported on page 330, THE DEBATES
OF THE SEVERAL STATE CONVENTIONS ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION 1787, VOL III by Jonathan Elliot. J B Lippincott Company 1888)
(2) Schaff, Philip, "Church and State in the United States,"
Papers of the American Historical Society,1888, p. 137.
(3) Beard, Charles, The republic, New York, Viking Press
1944, pp. 166, 178. (SOURCE OF INFORMATION: CHURCH, STATE AND FREEDOM, Leo
Pfeffer Boston, The Beacon Press (1953) p 114)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/nopower.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: SOME THOUGHTS ON RELIGION AND LAW |
19 Aug 2005 09:06:14 AM |
|
|
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
:|buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
:|> SOME THOUGHTS ON RELIGION AND LAW
:|>
:|> 1.The Constitution did not provide any mechanism for the establishment of
:|> religion or for the support of religion
:|
:|More specifically, the 1st Amendment of the federal BOR sterilized the
:|federal government with respect to having any power to address
:|religion. And if you go down to the 10th Amendment which you and
:|others have been reluctant to admit even exists, you will see that the
:|10th Amendment automatically reserved the power to address religion for
:|the states.
I wonder if fred has noticed that I made his plugging for Keyes more honest
and accurate for the past week or more each time i foudn his plugging
mantra?
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
:|Separationists and tyrant judges don't want people to know that the
:|10th Amendment actually reserved the power to address religion for the
:|states since the 1st Amendment explicitly prohibited this power to the
:|federal government.
:| The [ Radical Religious Right Theocratic propagandistic ]
:|essay referenced by the link below explains
:|the 1st and 10th Amendments with respect to religion:
:|
:|http://www.renewamerica.us/readings/keyes_essay.htm
:|
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
From: Bob LeChevalier <>
Newsgroups:
alt.religion.christian,alt.politics.gw-bush,alt.politics.republican,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.education
Subject: Re: So-called theocratic states vs section 1 of 14th Amendment
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 05:46:26 -0400
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Whether "Jefferson said" so or not, the interpretaton by the USSC (the
ONLY entity allowed to do so) has established that doctrine
generations ago.
But the Court "established that doctrine" based on Jeffersons words.
It would have established that "doctrine" no matter who said it.
Incredible :^(
What's incredible? Other than your continuing to pontificate in
ignorance.
Have you READ the Everson decision that you think yourself qualified
to counter? The court DID NOT define the Establishment Clause based
on Jefferson's words. You could remove the quote from Jefferson from
the text and it wouldn't change their reasoning a whit, since it was
not part of their reasoning. They tacked the quote on the END, as a
short summary
Offering "essays", "writings", or other non-relevant, extraneous crap
won't alter the fact.
Again, the Court used Jefferson's writings to justify their doctrine
anyway.
The notion that a "wall" exists would exist independent of Jefferson.
If sponge bob said it even.
You're in a fantasy world.
The "wall" is a metaphor for the formal legal definition that the
court decided in Everson. They did not need Jefferson's quote.
Adding it made good rhetoric, as indeed many speakers and writers add
relevant quotes from great people to spice up their writing.
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
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Kindly explain to the readers that overall importance of Jefferson's letter
in reply to the Danbury Baptists Association in defining the Establishment
Clause in light of the following information:
From:
Newsgroups:
alt.education,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.republican,misc.education
Subject: Re: (Mis)Interpretation of First Amendment
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 15:07:00 -0500
PART V
ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE:, EVERSON & FOOTNOTES TO EVERSON
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.education/msg/a554494414aff8a5?hl=en&lr=
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
From:
Newsgroups:
alt.religion.christian,alt.politics.gw-bush,alt.politics.republican,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.education
Subject: Re: So-called theocratic states vs section 1 of 14th Amendment
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 12:06:23 -0600
On 17 Aug 2005 19:01:27 -0700, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
The 10th Amendment reserved for the states the power to address
religion since the 1st Amendment of the federal BOR prohibits this
power only to the federal government
Christ sake fred
"Essays" aren't law.
Citizens are afforded equal protection of law.
States cannot address constitutional questions that affect ALL
citizens and "interpretations" other than the USSC are bogus.
Government (state, local, federal) cannot set up, endorse, promote,
pander to, wink at, or in any way favor religious stupidity as policy.
Whether "Jefferson said" so or not, the interpretaton by the USSC (the
ONLY entity allowed to do so) has established that doctrine
generations ago.
Offering "essays", "writings", or other non-relevant, extraneous crap
won't alter the fact.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote in message
The Tenth Amendment was altered so that it really isn't as clear as many
people seem to think
(1) THE TENTH AMENDMENT
(2) THE BILL OF RIGHTS & THE TENTH AMENDMENT,
(3) THERE HAVE BEEN ATTEMPTS TO UNDERMINE WHAT THE FOUNDERS PASSED BY
ADDING THE WORD EXPRESSLY TO THE TENTH AMENDMENT: THE BATTLE OVER THE TENTH
AMENDMENT: OPENING A SECOND FRONT
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.religion.christianity/msg/45713c229fe82b90?hl=en&
***********************************************************************************************************
cloim <cloim@propylaea.tor.org> wrote:
:|
:|As he says the word "congress" does appear to state that the 1st amendment
:|does not apply to the states. And I see no reason to believe that is an
:|inaccurate reading.
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote in message
There was a reason for that. Congress was singled out because it was the
most powerful however, the writings of Madison makes it clear that it
wasn't just congress that was meant. The government, as a whole, was
meant
cloim <cloim@propylaea.tor.org> wrote:
:|However, as others have already pointed out, the 14th amendment changed
:|things...
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote in message
That is true which totally makes fred's daily spamming trolling posts
totally irrelevant as well as articles written by those pointing what was,
once irrelevant.
Slavery was permitted by the Constitution but few cite that today to say we
should return to that.
if we returned to what was, as these people advocate, this is what we could
have to give up:
The following list shows the provisions in the Bill of Rights that have
been incorporated via the 14th Amendment:
* (5) 1897 -- Right to Just Compensation
* (1) 1925 -- Freedom of Speech [dictum]
1927 [holding]
* (1) 1931 -- Freedom of the Press
* (6) 1932 -- Assistance of Counsel in capital case
* (1) 1937 -- Freedom of Assembly
* (1) 1940 -- Free Exercise of Religion
* (1) 1947 -- Ban on Religious Establishment
* (4) 1948 -- Right to public trial
* (4) 1949 -- Right against unreasonable Search and Seizure
* (1) 1958 -- Freedom of Association (1958)
* (4) 1961 -- Exclusionary Rule
* (8) 1962 -- Ban on Cruel and Unusual Punishment
* (6) 1963 -- Assistance of counsel in all felony cases
* (5) 1964 -- Right against Self-incrimination
* (6) 1965 -- Right to confront adverse witnesses
* (6) 1966 -- Right to impartial trial
* (6) 1967 -- Right to Compulsory Process to obtain witnesses
* (6) 1967 -- Right to Speedy Trial
* (6) 1968 -- Right to Jury in nonpetty criminal cases
* (5) 1969 -- Right against Double Jeopardy
* (6) 1972 -- Right to counsel imprisonable misdemeanor cases
* (6) 1972 -- Right to notice of accusation
* (6) 1979 -- Right to a unanimous verdict if only six jurors
Source of Information: The Evolving Constitution, How the Supreme Court
Has Ruled on Issues from Abortion to Zoning. By Jethro K. Lieberman, Random
House (1992) pp. 258, 260.
Actually what the theocrats like fred, Alan Keyes most of the others would
really like to do is just make the Establishment Clause go away and maybe
in a number of instances the free exercise clause.
However, what they overlook is that most state constitutions have the same
provisions and sometimes even stricter.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amend. To improve. To change for the better by
removing defects or faults. To change, correct,
revise. See Amendment.
Amendment. To change or modify for the better.
To alter by modification, deletion, or addition.
SOURCE: Black's Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition Centennial Edition
(1891-1991) West Publishing (1991) p 52
*******************************************************************************
I said it was modified, not revoked. The 1st reads, "Congress shall
make no law ...". The 14th reads "No State shall make ... any law ..."
The 14th modifies the 1st to effectively read, "Congress and the
States shall make no law ..."
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 16:55:12 -0500
From: Josh Rosenbluth to fred
*******************************************************************************
Fourteenth Amendment, Selective Incorporation
http://candst.tripod.com/14thamend.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: SOME THOUGHTS ON RELIGION AND LAW |
18 Aug 2005 01:46:15 PM |
|
|
wrote:
SOME THOUGHTS ON RELIGION AND LAW
1.The Constitution did not provide any mechanism for the establishment of
religion or for the support of religion
2. Religious tests were the primary mechanism for perpetuating an
established church within the political structure.
3.The Constitution specifically prohibits religious tests or oaths for
office.
Playing devil's advocate, I note that the Constitution has been
interpreted to permit a wide variety of exercises in government power
to "promote the general welfare". It seems to me that the unamended
constitution might not in fact lead to separation of church and state,
in that nothing in the unamended constitution forbids the respecting
of an establishment (or even the establishing) of religion, provided
that the purpose qualifies under the general welfare clause. Such
recognition/respect of a church or religious belief need not
constitute a "religious test" to be a breach in the wall of
separation.
And of course the religious believe that the general welfare REQUIRES
obedience to "God's Law", leading to theocracy.
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: "" |
|
| Title: Re: SOME THOUGHTS ON RELIGION AND LAW |
19 Aug 2005 01:30:42 PM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
:|buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
:|> SOME THOUGHTS ON RELIGION AND LAW
:|>
:|> 1.The Constitution did not provide any mechanism for the establishment of
:|>religion or for the support of religion
:|>
:|>2. Religious tests were the primary mechanism for perpetuating an
:|>established church within the political structure.
:|>
:|>3.The Constitution specifically prohibits religious tests or oaths for
:|>office.
:|
:|Playing devil's advocate, I note that the Constitution has been
:|interpreted to permit a wide variety of exercises in government power
:|to "promote the general welfare". It seems to me that the unamended
:|constitution might not in fact lead to separation of church and state,
:|in that nothing in the unamended constitution forbids the respecting
:|of an establishment (or even the establishing) of religion, provided
:|that the purpose qualifies under the general welfare clause. Such
:|recognition/respect of a church or religious belief need not
:|constitute a "religious test" to be a breach in the wall of
:|separation.
:|
:|And of course the religious believe that the general welfare REQUIRES
:|obedience to "God's Law", leading to theocracy.
:|
:|lojbab
Actually, I was just on the Yahoo group site and realize that it wasn't to
fred I posted that info I mentioned earlier but rather to a member of that
group
He had wanted to know why they had used the Establishment Clause rather
than article VI Section or paragraph III "the religious test ban" in
Torcasco v Watkins opinion. Part of my reply actually would be answering
your devil's advocate playing
You could join up and find out (grin)
***************************************************************
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: SOME THOUGHTS ON RELIGION AND LAW |
19 Aug 2005 08:27:56 AM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
:|buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
:|> SOME THOUGHTS ON RELIGION AND LAW
:|>
:|> 1.The Constitution did not provide any mechanism for the establishment of
:|>religion or for the support of religion
:|>
:|>2. Religious tests were the primary mechanism for perpetuating an
:|>established church within the political structure.
:|>
:|>3.The Constitution specifically prohibits religious tests or oaths for
:|>office.
:|
:|Playing devil's advocate, I note that the Constitution has been
:|interpreted to permit a wide variety of exercises in government power
:|to "promote the general welfare". It seems to me that the unamended
:|constitution might not in fact lead to separation of church and state,
:|in that nothing in the unamended constitution forbids the respecting
:|of an establishment (or even the establishing) of religion, provided
:|that the purpose qualifies under the general welfare clause. Such
:|recognition/respect of a church or religious belief need not
:|constitute a "religious test" to be a breach in the wall of
:|separation.
:|
:|And of course the religious believe that the general welfare REQUIRES
:|obedience to "God's Law", leading to theocracy.
:|
:|lojbab
Hmmmmm, you must be bored or don't have enough to do to keep you busy. That
is said with a degree of tongue in cheek
However, I have two possible solutions
(1) Go play with Gardiner, he is back, but he is avoiding appearing in
alt,education. he keeps removing that newsgroup when he replies to me. I
think he is afraid of some of the regulars there, including you.
(2) Come join us at
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
We really would love your input and you could participate as much or
little as you like
Will wonders never cease, Gardiner is even a member, something i didn't
know till a week or two ago. However, he never ports a word there he only
spies on us.
I think you would probably enjoy Ellery Schempp.
Now to your devils advocate post. Come on over to the Hampton Roads Yahoo
Group and I might address each of your points but here I will only say that
I have addressed this so many times in the past I have no desire to do so
again here.
I have, in the past many times provided primary source documentation as
well as a variety of quotes from a number respected historical and legal
scholars that counters your devil advocate points
In addition to that I tend to go with Susan Batte in her assessment of
things and it was her comments that you elected to quote for your jumping
off point.
We did this once before and additonal information that I found and posted
over a period of time convinced you she was correct all along. In fact I
now see that you very frequently make the point to people that all nine
justices signed off on the rules of law that were put forth in Everson v Bd
of Ed.
I understand what devils advocate means and I know your portion on church
state separation which is why I said (tongue in cheek) you must have too
much time on your hands or are bored.
Actually, come to think of it, I actually replied to fred quite recently
providing much of the same information that I have posted before that
would counter your points.
You might look that up in google.
Right now I am involved in several ongoing projects that is taking up my
time pretty much.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: SOME THOUGHTS ON RELIGION AND LAW |
19 Aug 2005 01:55:31 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Hmmmmm, you must be bored or don't have enough to do to keep you busy. That
is said with a degree of tongue in cheek
I said I was playing devil's advocate. It seems to be something that
your various essays do not clearly address.
However, I have two possible solutions
(1) Go play with Gardiner, he is back, but he is avoiding appearing in
alt,education. he keeps removing that newsgroup when he replies to me. I
think he is afraid of some of the regulars there, including you.
If he doesn't post here, I can't play with him. I'm not going
elsewhere to hunt him down.
(2) Come join us at
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
Sorry, but no. I confine my political discussions to Usenet for the
most part. I'm already a member of too many mailing lists that I
don't read most of, and I don't need another.
We really would love your input
No time.
I understand what devils advocate means and I know your portion on church
state separation which is why I said (tongue in cheek) you must have too
much time on your hands or are bored.
Actually not. You have posted a large number of posts in the last
couple of weeks on this newsgroup, and looking ONLY at what you have
posted, it doesn't seem to address what I asked. I presume you have
some logic that determines what you choose to post, so I was providing
input into it.
Actually, come to think of it, I actually replied to fred quite recently
providing much of the same information that I have posted before that
would counter your points.
You might look that up in google.
I haven't seen it. But if you have, then more power to you.
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: "" |
|
| Title: Re: SOME THOUGHTS ON RELIGION AND LAW |
19 Aug 2005 03:15:46 PM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
:|buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
:|>Hmmmmm, you must be bored or don't have enough to do to keep you busy. That
:|>is said with a degree of tongue in cheek
:|
:|I said I was playing devil's advocate.
I am aware of that and even addressed it so you wouldn't take it as a nasty
Forget to add :O) but did say it was tongue in cheek which is a term I
thought everyone understood
:| It seems to be something that
:|your various essays do not clearly address.
Actually they have at times. See the end of this
:|>However, I have two possible solutions
:|>(1) Go play with Gardiner, he is back, but he is avoiding appearing in
:|>alt,education. he keeps removing that newsgroup when he replies to me. I
:|>think he is afraid of some of the regulars there, including you.
:|
:|If he doesn't post here, I can't play with him. I'm not going
:|elsewhere to hunt him down.
I believe that might be what he is counting on. Especially since he keeps
removing alt.education from the newsgroup line.
I could be wrong, of course, but I think mostly it is you, Gray Shockley
and probably Cary Kittrell that he would just as leave not have to deal
with. :O)
:|
:|>(2) Come join us at
:|>HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
:|>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
:|
:|Sorry, but no. I confine my political discussions to Usenet for the
:|most part. I'm already a member of too many mailing lists that I
:|don't read most of, and I don't need another.
Well, the wonderful thing about yahoo groups is you don't have to receive
mail from them you can select no mail.
Which leaves you the option of logging on or not logging on to read and or
participate whenever you want to, or never.
I am a member of a huge number of Yahoo groups of various kinds but get no
email from any of them. I log onto them as I get time and desire to do so.
:|
:|>We really would love your input
:|
:|No time.
Time is controlled by you.
:|
:|>I understand what devils advocate means and I know your portion on church
:|>state separation which is why I said (tongue in cheek) you must have too
:|>much time on your hands or are bored.
:|
:|Actually not.
again, it was meant as humor see - tongue in cheek I should have added
:O) too I suppose.
Strange as it may seem I love humor and even love to employ it here when i
can far too much seriousness in the world today
:| You have posted a large number of posts in the last
:|couple of weeks on this newsgroup, and looking ONLY at what you have
:|posted, it doesn't seem to address what I asked.
You are right, they had nothing at all to do with that.
:| I presume you have
:|some logic that determines what you choose to post, so I was providing
:|input into it.
Yes and no.
In my studies especially in the past year as I got the Local Meetup Group
and the Hampton Roads Sep C&S Yahoo Group off the ground and I worked
promoting those groups, worked with the activist Handbook Challenging the
Religious Right I began to realize just how well the Radical Religious
Right has leaned to use the internet. I "knew" that before but I really got
into really seeing and appreciating how well they did it over the past year
or so.
In the past I was posting in the UseNet newsgroups and was aware of deja
news and Google but how many people really read the newsgroups?
How many people really searched things out in deja or google?
Once in awhile I found something I had posted outside of the newsgroups,
google or deja news when it still existed but not that often
In the past 5 months to a year I have come to realize that even posting in
the newgroups can reach a hell of a lot of people since what is being
posted in various usenet newsgroups is being circulated all over the net
I am finding I am considered to be a member of all sorts of various forums
that I never heard of and never joined but I am listed as a member and I
am finding various posts of mine there
So in part I post now just to spread pro strict separation of church and
state information. After all the trolls for the other side have been doing
that for years.
Sometimes I post now based on themes that are being brought up in the
Hampton Roads Yahoo group or ideas I get from there or articles I found as
a result of me searching fro things to post there.
A recent question that was asked in the yahoo group by a member was
concerning no law. So I looked up information for that and posted that
here and well as there.
Someone mentioned respecting and what did that mean so that led to some
other things which I posted there and here
Lastly I post to get and keep discussions going here in usenet
So yes and no to the logic of my recent posting and BTW most of that
posting is not time consuming since it consists of a URL usually, a
couple excepts and the like. I don't actually enter into it
:|
:|>Actually, come to think of it, I actually replied to fred quite recently
:|>providing much of the same information that I have posted before that
:|>would counter your points.
:|>
:|>You might look that up in google.
:|
:|I haven't seen it. But if you have, then more power to you.
This took all of ten seconds but it wasn't to fred. The one I was thinking
about was to a fella on the Hampton Roads Yahoo Group.
The one below was 3 years ago
There are similar ones to that even older that I did back in the mid to
late 90s
I recall writing and posting therm, I don't recall exactly when but I was
still living at the other place where we lived from 1994 to 1999 before
moving here and buying this place.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.constitution/msg/3767877988d442fd?hl=en&
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: SOME THOUGHTS ON RELIGION AND LAW |
18 Aug 2005 02:20:53 PM |
|
|
wrote:
SOME THOUGHTS ON RELIGION AND LAW
1.The Constitution did not provide any mechanism for the establishment of
religion or for the support of religion
More specifically, the 1st Amendment of the federal BOR sterilized the
federal government with respect to having any power to address
religion. And if you go down to the 10th Amendment which you and
others have been reluctant to admit even exists, you will see that the
10th Amendment automatically reserved the power to address religion for
the states.
2. Religious tests were the primary mechanism for perpetuating an
established church within the political structure.
3.The Constitution specifically prohibits religious tests or oaths for
office.
With few exceptions, such as the 10th Amendment and section 1 of the
14th Amendment, the federal Constitution deals only with the federal
government, not the states.
THEREFORE, the Constitution created the concept of Separation of Church and
State by providing nothing in the constitution that supports the idea that
Government as Government is allowed to support any religion for any reason
and by specifically prohibiting the primary political mechanism for
supporting religion.
Now you're ignoring that the Constitution makes a major distinction
between the federal and state governments as evidenced by the 10th and
14th Amendments. And I have repeatedly posted this extract from
Jefferson's writings to substantiate that assertion:
"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
The 1st Amendment may only be interpreted, as being consistent with the
Constitution and the views expressed in the Constitution concerning
religion because:
1.The 1st Amendment was drafted after the Constitution was ratified and was
not designated as repealing any provision in the Constitution.
2. The 1st Amendment does not provide any mechanism for establishing
religion.
Again, the 1st Amendment limits the powers of the federal government,
not the states. This is evidenced by the 10th and 14th Amendments.
3. The 1st Amendment does provide the mechanism to allow an individual as
an individual and not as government to exercise the religion of his or
her choice.
THEREFORE, the 1st Amendment cannot be interpreted to mean that some
governmental entities may support religion in some ways (i.e., vouchers,
welfare programs, etc.).
Ignoring the 10th Amendment with respect to interpreting the 1st
Amendment is just leads to a dishonest interpretation of the 1st
Amendment.
Once the 1st Amendment prohibited Congress from establishing religion by
prohibiting it from making any law respecting an establishment of religion
- Congress was thereby precluded from passing any kind of appropriation
bill to fund any religious enterprise.
Then why are atheists and separationists complaining about the Pledge
with respect to the 1st Amendment?
In order for the above to be true, the interpretation of "establishment"
would have to be broad, and in fact the broad interpretation
of"establishment" is supported. First, the O.E.D. (Oxford English
Dictionary) sets out a 1561 definition of establishment as "a means of
establishing; something that strengthens, supports or corroborates. Into
the 1700s - 1800s, "establishment" could be defined as "the establishing
by law (a church, religion, form of worship.) As an example, the O.E.D.
sets out the following: 1886 Earl Selborne Def Ch. Eng. I. iv. 77 All such
relations of the Church to the State as those which are summed up in the
term 'Establishment'.
Atheists and separationists are justifiably concerned about bully
pulpit preachers. But because they don't understand how the
Constitution actually protects our federal rights from bully preachers,
they are screwing things up for everybody by condoning a dishonest
interpretation of the establishment clause.
Second, a broad interpretation of"establishment" is consistent with the
indefinite article that proceeds it. "An"'establishment of religion'
refers to all or any religious establishment --- not to one or some
establishments. In the absence of definiteness, the inclusion of "of one
Christian sect over another" after "Congress shall make no law respecting
an establishment" would be necessary if, as Mr. Barton argues, the 1st
Amendment was all about stamping out competing rivalries between Christian
sects.
C'mon. Basic reading skills tell us that the establishment clause
simply helps to clarify the kinds of laws that Congress is prohibited
from writing. Again, if atheists and separationists would take the
time to understand how the Constitution actually protects our federal
rights then the establishment clause wouldn't be regarded so
significantly.
In addition, the operative word in the Establishment Clause is RESPECTING.
Respecting an establishment of religion. Any religious institution, be it a
20 member country church or a huge multi-million member international
religion, is an establishment of religion. The government is forbidden from
making any laws, positive or negative that would pertain to an
establishment of religion.
The narrow definition of establishment is that the 1st Amendment meant
only to prevent a "State Church" from being officially sanctioned by the
Government. (In this way, some people have tried to argue that supporting
religious schools doesn't establish anything.) However, such a narrow
reading of "Establishment" would need specific language added to the
Amendment to support it since a plain language reading of the Constitution
clearly shows no bias for (or against) Christianity as opposed to any other
religion or even irreligion. And neither does the 1st Amendment.
I would be remiss if I did not point out that the 10th Amendment is not
implicated in the matter of funding religious schools. The 14th amendment
applying the establishment clause against states
S. Batte Esq.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/bthot-lr.htm
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Research by Jim Allison; written by Jim Allison & Susan Batte
The purpose of the 1st Amendment was not to create the idea or principle of
separation of church and state. Instead, the 1st Amendment reinforced the
meaning of the separation of church and state principle as it was embodied
in the unamended constitution.
Again, people are failing to understand that the Founding Fathers
regarded the federal and state governments as two distinct entities.
In the unamended constitution the government was given no authority in
matters of religion: no authority to aid (promote, help, etc) or hinder
religion. Matters of religion were off limits to the government, but the
drafters of the Constitution were hard pressed to convince the state
<snipped for brevity>
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
