| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
03 Dec 2005 07:01:50 AM |
| Object: |
The church vs. state question |
The church vs. state question
http://www.ndsmcobserver.com/media/paper660/news/2005/12/02/Viewpoint/The-Church.Vs.State.Question-1118740.shtml?norewrite&sourcedomain=www.ndsmcobserver.com
[excerpts]
Observer Online - IN,USA
The Founding Fathers did not invent religious tolerance - it had already
formed out of the circumstances that created the original colonies -
however their unique perspective gave them the presence of mind to enshrine
it in the Constitution, in the form of the separation of church and state,
and so to protect it from less-gentle hands that might govern in the
future. They were not unreligious men, yet they understood that a certain
distance is required between politics and religion, for the protection of
both.
We still dwell in the nation of their legacy, and the consequences of
embracing pluralism as a public virtue are widespread. There are few
societies, if any, that are simultaneously as secular and as religious as
the United States, or where questions of the relationship between church
and state are taken up more fiercely by more people. This is a sign of the
nation's health.
However, for people of faith-especially those who practice religions like
Christianity and Islam, which do not embrace the equality of other beliefs
- the nature of the country raises a difficult question. What does it mean
to be a religious person in such a tolerant and pluralistic society and how
can one embrace all of these values while compromising none?
[snip]
However, Notre Dame is a very insulated microcosm that is only beginning to
reflect a wider trend sweeping Christian churches and the nation. The
coupling between religion and politics has grown stronger in the past
decade, to the ultimate detriment of each. This union has already produced
some very strange bedfellows, like the Republican Party's unstable mixture
of traditional small-government conservatives and religious theocons who
will spend any amount of money in pursuit of their social agendas.
This close relationship is dangerous, because it tempts religious leaders
to use their authority to directly impact government in dubious ways, for
example declaring that voting for a particular candidate is immoral, or
ostracizing political leaders when their public views do not match those of
the religion. It takes more than the restraint of the State to make the
American system work; it also requires a degree restraint on the part of
religions not to undermine it. Under this pressure the very idea of
separation of church and state and the tolerance and pluralism that are
built on it begin to crumble.
[snip]
.... however their [founders] unique perspective gave them the presence of
mind to enshrine it in the Constitution, in the form of the separation of
church and state, and so ...
**************************************************************
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
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: The church vs. state question |
03 Dec 2005 07:17:57 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 08:01:50 -0500, wrote:
However, for people of faith-especially those who practice religions like
Christianity, which do not embrace the equality of other beliefs
- the nature of the country raises a difficult question.
Since when???????
The First Amendment reads, in its entirety:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of
the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances."
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: The church vs. state question; article fails 10th Amendment test |
03 Dec 2005 12:34:54 PM |
|
|
alt.education removed.
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
The church vs. state question
http://www.ndsmcobserver.com/media/paper660/news/2005/12/02/Viewpoint/The-Church.Vs.State.Question-1118740.shtml?norewrite&sourcedomain=www.ndsmcobserver.com
[excerpts]
Observer Online - IN,USA
The Founding Fathers did not invent religious tolerance - it had already
formed out of the circumstances that created the original colonies -
however their unique perspective gave them the presence of mind to enshrine
it in the Constitution, in the form of the separation of church and state,
and so to protect it from less-gentle hands that might govern in the
future. They were not unreligious men, yet they understood that a certain
distance is required between politics and religion, for the protection of
both.
The above paragraph is just another unfocused reference to so-called
constitutional church-state separation. It ignores that the 10th
Amendment automatically reserved for the States the power to legislate
religion since the 1st Amendment explicitly prohibited only Congress
(federal government; aka United States) from having this power:
"Article 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people."
Justice Reed noted that it is the job of Justices to balance the 10th
Amendment protected sovereign powers of the States with 14th Amendment
protected personal federal rights:
"Conflicts in the exercise of rights arise and the conflicting forces
seek adjustments in the courts, as do these parties, claiming on the
one side the freedom of religion, speech and the press, guaranteed by
the Fourteenth Amendment, and on the other the right to employ the
sovereign power explicitly reserved to the State by the Tenth Amendment
to ensure orderly living without which constitutional guarantees of
civil liberties would be a mockery." -- Jones v. City of Opelika 1942
So regardless that the States have been misled by corrupt,
anti-religious expression judges to believe otherwise, the States have
the constitutional power (10th) to authorize public schools to lead
non-mandatory (14th) classroom discussions about the pros and cons of
evolution, creationism and irreducible complexity, for example.
What is happening is that anti-religious expression judges are now
using the 14th Amendment as their excuse to unconstitutionally impose
the 1st Amendment's prohibitions on Congress on the States while
ignoring the 10th Amendment altogether.
<snipped for brevity>
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The church vs. state question; article fails 10th Amendment test |
03 Dec 2005 09:39:09 PM |
|
|
On 3 Dec 2005 10:34:54 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
The above paragraph is just another unfocused reference to so-called
constitutional church-state separation. It ignores that the 10th
Amendment automatically reserved for the States the power to legislate
religion
Just more ***** freddie
Constitutional guarantees cannot be abrogated by a
lesser entity.
What is happening is that anti-religious expression judges are now
using the 14th Amendment as their excuse to unconstitutionally impose
the 1st Amendment's prohibitions on Congress on the States while
ignoring the 10th Amendment altogether.
States cannot abridge freedoms guaranteed by the
federal constitution, Freddie
No matter how YOU "read" the 10th.
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: The church vs. state question; article fails 10th Amendment test |
03 Dec 2005 10:01:14 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On 3 Dec 2005 10:34:54 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
The above paragraph is just another unfocused reference to so-called
constitutional church-state separation. It ignores that the 10th
Amendment automatically reserved for the States the power to legislate
religion
Just more ***** freddie
Constitutional guarantees cannot be abrogated by a
lesser entity.
You're going in circles here. I just pointed out that anti-religious
expression factions, such as yourself, have the bad habit of alluding
to constitutional guarantees that don't really exist.
What is happening is that anti-religious expression judges are now
using the 14th Amendment as their excuse to unconstitutionally impose
the 1st Amendment's prohibitions on Congress on the States while
ignoring the 10th Amendment altogether.
States cannot abridge freedoms guaranteed by the
federal constitution, Freddie
And your point?
No matter how YOU "read" the 10th.
Why are you suggesting that the 10th is difficult to interpret? Your
problem is that you can't stand to hear the common sense interpretation
of the 10th as it relates to the 1st with respect to our religous
freedoms.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The church vs. state question; article fails 10th Amendment test |
04 Dec 2005 10:06:03 AM |
|
|
On 3 Dec 2005 20:01:14 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Constitutional guarantees cannot be abrogated by a
lesser entity.
You're going in circles here. I just pointed out that anti-religious
expression factions,
No, you've just whined about not allowing states to
force religion on people within geographical
boundaries.
It is not "anti-religious" to enforce laws that
prohibit religion from being forced on residents simply
bcause of geographical locality.
States cannot abridge freedoms guaranteed by the
federal constitution, Freddie
And your point?
No state has the power, or right, to pass laws or
policy that promotes religion.
No matter how YOU "read" the 10th.
Why are you suggesting that the 10th is difficult to interpret?
The amendment is not hard
What you're doing is elevating it to a status it
doesn't have.
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: The church vs. state question; article fails 10th Amendment test |
04 Dec 2005 12:19:05 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On 3 Dec 2005 20:01:14 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Constitutional guarantees cannot be abrogated by a
lesser entity.
You're going in circles here. I just pointed out that anti-religious
expression factions,
No, you've just whined about not allowing states to
force religion on people within geographical
boundaries.
Knickkkers, you know where I'm coming from.
It is not "anti-religious" to enforce laws that
prohibit religion from being forced on residents simply
bcause of geographical locality.
States cannot abridge freedoms guaranteed by the
federal constitution, Freddie
And your point?
No state has the power, or right, to pass laws or
policy that promotes religion.
10th Amendment
No matter how YOU "read" the 10th.
Why are you suggesting that the 10th is difficult to interpret?
The amendment is not hard
What you're doing is elevating it to a status it
doesn't have.
And you and your anti-religious expression Justice friends are sweeping
the 10th under the carpet.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The church vs. state question; article fails 10th Amendment test |
04 Dec 2005 02:00:02 PM |
|
|
On 4 Dec 2005 10:19:05 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
And you and your anti-religious expression Justice friends are sweeping
the 10th under the carpet.
No so
But nevertheless, it's better than sweeping freedom
from government sponsored religion by making silly
interpretations of the constitution.
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: The church vs. state question; article fails 10th Amendment test |
04 Dec 2005 04:01:15 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On 4 Dec 2005 10:19:05 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
And you and your anti-religious expression Justice friends are sweeping
the 10th under the carpet.
No so
But nevertheless, it's better than sweeping freedom
from government sponsored religion by making silly
interpretations of the constitution.
You followed your "not so" concerning sweeping the 10th under the
carpet with an "its better," a subtle admission that you are sweeping
the 10th under the carpet. And then you call my reasonable
interpretation of the checks and balances of the 1st, 10th and 14th
Amendments concerning freedom of religious expression silly.
Just like an alcoholic who is unwilling to admit a drinking problem,
the bottom line is that you have been brainwashed to unthinkingly fight
tooth and nail for unconstitutional absolute church-state separation,
the Constitution be damned.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The church vs. state question; article fails 10th Amendment test |
04 Dec 2005 05:02:55 PM |
|
|
On 4 Dec 2005 14:01:15 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Knickkkers@WhattaIdiot.com wrote:
On 4 Dec 2005 10:19:05 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
And you and your anti-religious expression Justice friends are sweeping
the 10th under the carpet.
No so
But nevertheless, it's better than sweeping freedom
from government sponsored religion by making silly
interpretations of the constitution.
You followed your "not so" concerning sweeping the 10th under the
carpet with an "its better," a subtle admission that you are sweeping
the 10th under the carpet. And then you call my reasonable
interpretation of the checks and balances of the 1st, 10th and 14th
Amendments concerning freedom of religious expression silly.
It is not reasonable to insist that a state government
has the right to do what the federal government
guarantees cannot be done.
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: The church vs. state question; article fails 10th Amendment test |
04 Dec 2005 11:22:10 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On 4 Dec 2005 14:01:15 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
wrote:
On 4 Dec 2005 10:19:05 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
And you and your anti-religious expression Justice friends are sweeping
the 10th under the carpet.
No so
But nevertheless, it's better than sweeping freedom
from government sponsored religion by making silly
interpretations of the constitution.
You followed your "not so" concerning sweeping the 10th under the
carpet with an "its better," a subtle admission that you are sweeping
the 10th under the carpet. And then you call my reasonable
interpretation of the checks and balances of the 1st, 10th and 14th
Amendments concerning freedom of religious expression silly.
It is not reasonable to insist that a state government
has the right to do what the federal government
guarantees cannot be done.
The States are the ones who created the federal government in the first
place. It was the States who decided what powers the federal
government would and would not have.
"The States in North America which confederated to establish their
independence of the government of Great Britain, of which Virginia was
one, became on that acquisition, free and independent States, and as
such, authorized to constitute governments, each for itself, in such
form as it thought best. They entered into a compact (which is called
the Constitution of the United States of America), by which they agreed
to unite in a single government as to their relations with each other
and with foreign nations, and as to certain other articles particularly
specified. They retained at the same time each to itself, the other
rights of independent government, comprehending mainly their domestic
interests." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration and Protest of Virginia,
1825. ME 17:442
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The church vs. state question; article fails 10th Amendment test |
05 Dec 2005 12:23:04 AM |
|
|
On 4 Dec 2005 21:22:10 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
It is not reasonable to insist that a state government
has the right to do what the federal government
guarantees cannot be done.
The States are the ones who created the federal government in the first
place. It was the States who decided what powers the federal
government would and would not have.
The states ratified the constitution Freddie
Subsequently the National constitution became supreme.
There has not been any credible belief since the end of
the Civil War that states are "sovereign" or "supreme"
over the national government except from silly assholes
like Judge Moore and a few idiots
The Civil war ended ALL silly notions of that kind.
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: The church vs. state question; article fails 10th Amendment test |
06 Dec 2005 05:37:38 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On 4 Dec 2005 21:22:10 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
It is not reasonable to insist that a state government
has the right to do what the federal government
guarantees cannot be done.
The States are the ones who created the federal government in the first
place. It was the States who decided what powers the federal
government would and would not have.
The states ratified the constitution Freddie
Subsequently the National constitution became supreme.
There has not been any credible belief since the end of
the Civil War that states are "sovereign" or "supreme"
over the national government except from silly assholes
like Judge Moore and a few idiots
The Civil war ended ALL silly notions of that kind.
Step outside of your anti-religious expression reality distortion field
for a few moments for some fresh air. Once you get outside, don't mind
the strange sensation in your nose; it's oxygen. After some oxgen gets
to your brain consider that not only did the States create our
constitutionally based federal government but the States reserved for
themselves the final say in how that federal Constitution is
interpreted as evidenced by Article 5 of the Constitution.
The bottom line is that, because of your anti-religious expression
tunnel-vision, you simply don't know what you're talking about with
respect to the constitutional relationship between the State
governments and the federal government.
Now hurry and get back inside your reality distortion field before
normal oxygen level causes you to hyperventilate.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
