Religious Atheism and the Separation of Church and State

Religions > Bible > Religious Atheism and the Separation of Church and State

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 5

Topic:	Religions > Bible
User:	"Gactimus"
Date:	10 Jan 2005 01:58:41 PM
Object:	Religious Atheism and the Separation of Church and State

After reading about Newdow's new anti-religious lawsuit plans I was
inspired (not religiously so) with this question...
Does the establishment clause actually imply a separation of church and
state or is the left yet again trying to trample the Constitution?"
Answer: The "separation of church and state," as it's interpreted today, is
not only wrong, it stands the First Amendment, which was designed to
protect religious liberties, on its head. The First Amendment reads,
"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.
So, how does a judge putting the 10 commandments up on his courtroom wall
equate to Congress establishing a religion? Who can believe that some kid
singing "Away in a Manger" at an elementary school concert somehow means
the Federal Government is declaring Christianity to be the state religion?
When the Founding Fathers were around, they studied the Bible in public
schools and there were even official state religions. So, how is it that
today we can try to claim that the Founding Fathers considered those things
to be unconstitutional?
Separation of church and state, as it's interpreted today has nothing to do
with what the Founding Fathers intended and it has everything to do with
liberal, anti-Christian, zealots who are twisting the Constitution in order
to suit their own agenda.
.

User: "rogue"
Title: Re: Religious Atheism and the Separation of Church and State	10 Jan 2005 09:08:54 PM

Gactimus wrote:
Does the establishment clause actually imply a separation of church

and

state or is the left yet again trying to trample the Constitution?"
Answer: The "separation of church and state," as it's interpreted

today, is

not only wrong, it stands the First Amendment, which was designed to
protect religious liberties, on its head. The First Amendment reads,
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,

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.

JERRY
Do a search on "Danbury Church Letter" and do a little research for a
change, please.

Gactimus:
So, how does a judge putting the 10 commandments up on his courtroom
wall equate to Congress establishing a religion? Who can believe that

some kid singing "Away in a Manger" at an elementary school

concert > > > somehow means the Federal Government is declaring
Christianity to be > > the state religion?
JERRY
The Judge putting the Ten Commandments up on his courtroom equates to
it because Congress and the Constitution setup the Court system. The
Court system therefore is a reflection of Congress. If the Court
system, which is a system of authority, gives the impression that it's
based upon the Christian Church (which of course it's not, regardless
of the unsupported claims by theists) then that indicates to
non-christians that there is a theistic bias in the court. The child
singing "Away In The Manger" in a school production is the same, where
the school production is a theistic play, promoting Christianity. In a
public school where more than one religion is the rule, not the
exception, this indicates bias towards Christians in the eyes of
non-Christians.

Gactimus
When the Founding Fathers were around, they studied the Bible in

public

schools and there were even official state religions. So, how is it

that

today we can try to claim that the Founding Fathers considered those

things to be unconstitutional?

JERRY
Because you don't know your history, like nearly all of the
conservative christians I talk to. There were no public schools during
the Founding Father's times and only a couple of states attempted to
have a state religion, one of them being Virginia. However, it didn't
survive. Children were raised being educated in their homes and most
of the "literate" folk only had a bible, if they had any books at all.
Books weren't at all common as they are now, which is what made Thomas
Jefferson's library even more notable. In Massachusetts, which had a
state religion of Puritanism, they hanged folks for being different.
Funny how people who "spun" the line that they were seeking religious
freedom were actually seeking a way to prevent anyone else from having
it. Not that different from the conservative christians of today, I
suspect.

Gactimus
Separation of church and state, as it's interpreted today has nothing

to do

with what the Founding Fathers intended and it has everything to do

with

liberal, anti-Christian, zealots who are twisting the Constitution in

order

to suit their own agenda.

JERRY
Back to Danbury Church and the famous letter written to it by one
Thomas Jefferson, explaining intent. The majority of the Founding
Fathers also weren't Christian, but Deist. That means that they
embraced the concept of a creator but not the concept of Jesus being
"divine." They accepted him as a teacher and a sage, not as the Son of
God or as a personal savior. Jefferson even wrote his own version of
the NT, leaving out all of the supernatural events of the book and
concentrating entirely on Jesus' teachings as a man. As for the intent
of the Founders, one only has to read Ben Franklin's diary to know
better. On the first day of the Continental Convention to write the
new Constitution, Franklin (who was also a Deist, albeit one who
believed that the Almighty intervened in men's affairs - not all Deists
believed this) suggested that each day of the Convention start off with
a prayer to the Almighty to request guidance. The idea was dropped
when only 4-5 people raised their hands in agreement. The rest wanted
none of it.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Religious Atheism and the Separation of Church and State	11 Jan 2005 03:04:35 PM

"rogue" <rogue719@hotmail.com> wrote:

:|<snipped the headers for offtopic newsgroups as well as cutting the
:|number of groups down to five so I could post through Google.>

The only problem is, if you happen to delete the newsgroup he is posting
from he will never see your reply.

The Danbury Baptist Association letter didn't separate church and state,
that happened long before Jefferson ever heard of the Danbury Baptist
Association.
.

User: "rogue"
Title: Re: Religious Atheism and the Separation of Church and State	11 Jan 2005 07:30:23 PM

My understanding is that the Danbury letter explained the intent of the
framers. As for his newsgroups, Google only allows five, and he was
spamming abortion and homosexuality newsgroups with his posts, as well
as the theist groups. I had to pick and choose the ones most likely to
be read.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Religious Atheism and the Separation of Church and State	12 Jan 2005 03:12:04 AM

"rogue" <rogue719@hotmail.com> wrote:

:|My understanding is that the Danbury letter explained the intent of the
:|framers.

Not really. It was Jefferson's explanation but then Jefferson didn't
separate church and state.
The separation clause is found in the unamended constitution and was so
recognized as such before Jefferson ever received a letter from the
Danbury Baptist Association.
You can check out the following which gives primary source documentation
that separation was acknowledged before Jefferson
The actual separation clause is the religious test ban clause Article 6
section or paragraph 3.
Religious tests for public service and public office was one of the two
primary ways that established religions remained established. (Religious
schools was the other way). Politicians or those in the government became
the defenders of the faith.
When they banned religious tests for public office in the unamended
constitution they separated church and state
Study Guide: Separation of Church and State - Indepth
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd0.htm
The religious clauses of that which we call the BORs only reinforced that
which had already been done in the unamended constitution.

:|As for his newsgroups, Google only allows five, and he was
:|spamming abortion and homosexuality newsgroups with his posts, as well
:|as the theist groups. I had to pick and choose the ones most likely to
:|be read.

I don't know which one he is reading and posting from. Google shows that
he appears to be reading and posting from alt.religion.christian.last-days
yet I can't find his original post in any of the Usenet newsgroups that
was in the newsgroups line. The only place his original post shows up is
google.
I don't use google to post from
I don't expect he will reply to anyone anyways.
.

User: "rogue"
Title: Re: Religious Atheism and the Separation of Church and State	12 Jan 2005 07:16:24 AM

Thanks for the info
.

User: "ouroboros rex"
Title: Re: Religious Atheism and the Separation of Church and State	10 Jan 2005 02:21:51 PM

"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:quednUc_C_zsQ3_cRVn-og@rcn.net...

rofl I KNEW you had no idea what you are talking about.
"An establishment of religion" means any already-established church or
faith.
Who can believe that some kid

singing "Away in a Manger" at an elementary school concert somehow means
the Federal Government is declaring Christianity to be the state religion?

Exactly.

When the Founding Fathers were around, they studied the Bible in public
schools and there were even official state religions. So, how is it that
today we can try to claim that the Founding Fathers considered those
things
to be unconstitutional?

Separation of church and state, as it's interpreted today has nothing to
do
with what the Founding Fathers intended and it has everything to do with
liberal, anti-Christian, zealots who are twisting the Constitution in
order
to suit their own agenda.

cuckoo cuckoo cuckoo
.

User: "Osprey"
Title: Re: Religious Atheism and the Separation of Church and State	10 Jan 2005 02:35:32 PM

"ouroboros rex" <c-bee1@itg.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:cruo4v$af6$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...

"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:quednUc_C_zsQ3_cRVn-og@rcn.net...

rofl I KNEW you had no idea what you are talking about.

"An establishment of religion" means any already-established church or
faith.

What's amazing is many people can blast him for standing up for what he
believed in, yet cheer the mayor in San Fransico for selling thousands of
fake marriage documents to the gays and making probably millions off of a
piece of worthless paper.
.

User: "cactus"
Title: Re: Religious Atheism and the Separation of Church and State	10 Jan 2005 04:21:52 PM

Osprey wrote:

"ouroboros rex" <c-bee1@itg.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:cruo4v$af6$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...

"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:quednUc_C_zsQ3_cRVn-og@rcn.net...

rofl I KNEW you had no idea what you are talking about.

"An establishment of religion" means any already-established church or
faith.

Plenty of people blasted Mayor Newsom, and plenty of people cheered that
judge. Don't let your biases interfere with your ability to listen.
.

User: "Osprey"
Title: Re: Religious Atheism and the Separation of Church and State	10 Jan 2005 06:37:49 PM

"cactus" <baldemar.malnariz@ubadlands.edu> wrote in message
news:4eDEd.3671$pZ4.911@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...

Osprey wrote:

"ouroboros rex" <c-bee1@itg.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:cruo4v$af6$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...

"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:quednUc_C_zsQ3_cRVn-og@rcn.net...

rofl I KNEW you had no idea what you are talking about.

"An establishment of religion" means any already-established church or
faith.

Plenty of people blasted Mayor Newsom, and plenty of people cheered that
judge. Don't let your biases interfere with your ability to listen.

You are probably right.
But the point I am trying to make is this...
Judge Moore, took a utilitarianism approach. He did what he thought was
morally right.
Mayor Newsom, same thing.
The same people that I hear blasting Moore, for doing what he thought was
right are cheering for the Mayor. Both operated on what they thought was
morally right.
.

User: "cactus"
Title: Re: Religious Atheism and the Separation of Church and State	10 Jan 2005 10:40:00 PM

Osprey wrote:

"cactus" <baldemar.malnariz@ubadlands.edu> wrote in message
news:4eDEd.3671$pZ4.911@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...

Osprey wrote:

"ouroboros rex" <c-bee1@itg.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:cruo4v$af6$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...

"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:quednUc_C_zsQ3_cRVn-og@rcn.net...

rofl I KNEW you had no idea what you are talking about.

"An establishment of religion" means any already-established church or
faith.

Plenty of people blasted Mayor Newsom, and plenty of people cheered that
judge. Don't let your biases interfere with your ability to listen.

You are probably right.
But the point I am trying to make is this...

Judge Moore, took a utilitarianism approach. He did what he thought was
morally right.
Mayor Newsom, same thing.
The same people that I hear blasting Moore, for doing what he thought was
right are cheering for the Mayor. Both operated on what they thought was
morally right.

I think it's more complicated than that. Newsom was playing to a
political constituency, and IMO doing a bit of grandstanding. I happen
to agree with what he did, since the marriages were civil and not
religious, but his timing was not very good - I think he started
something that contributed to the Democratic presidential loss.
Judge Moore is IMO a different case. He is a jurist, and therefore
should have known better. Presumably he understood the church-state
issues and, as a jurist, he is obligated to support them. He damaged
himself in two ways: first, he compromised his objectivity. A number of
individuals who might have appeared in his court would now ask him to
recuse himself because of his evident religious bias. Second, he
protested incorrectly - he would have been far more effective had he
resigned and delivered a blast of a resignation letter. Not only would
he have taken the high road, he would have had the last word. Now, all
we will hear of him until he runs for office or becomes attorney general
is that he was removed from the bench. Sort of a Gary Hart, with tablets.
.

User: "Gactimus"
Title: Re: Religious Atheism and the Separation of Church and State	10 Jan 2005 11:29:40 PM

cactus <baldemar.malnariz@ubadlands.edu> wrote in
news:AMIEd.3981$Ii4.919@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:

Osprey wrote:

"cactus" <baldemar.malnariz@ubadlands.edu> wrote in message
news:4eDEd.3671$pZ4.911@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...

Osprey wrote:

"ouroboros rex" <c-bee1@itg.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:cruo4v$af6$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...

"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:quednUc_C_zsQ3_cRVn-og@rcn.net...

rofl I KNEW you had no idea what you are talking about.

"An establishment of religion" means any already-established church
or faith.

What's amazing is many people can blast him for standing up for what
he believed in, yet cheer the mayor in San Fransico for selling
thousands of fake marriage documents to the gays and making probably
millions off of a piece of worthless paper.

Plenty of people blasted Mayor Newsom, and plenty of people cheered
that judge. Don't let your biases interfere with your ability to
listen.

You are probably right.
But the point I am trying to make is this...

Judge Moore, took a utilitarianism approach. He did what he thought was
morally right.
Mayor Newsom, same thing.
The same people that I hear blasting Moore, for doing what he thought
was right are cheering for the Mayor. Both operated on what they
thought was morally right.

I think it's more complicated than that. Newsom was playing to a
political constituency, and IMO doing a bit of grandstanding. I happen
to agree with what he did, since the marriages were civil and not
religious, but his timing was not very good - I think he started
something that contributed to the Democratic presidential loss.

Judge Moore is IMO a different case. He is a jurist, and therefore
should have known better. Presumably he understood the church-state
issues and, as a jurist, he is obligated to support them. He damaged
himself in two ways: first, he compromised his objectivity. A number of
individuals who might have appeared in his court would now ask him to
recuse himself because of his evident religious bias. Second, he
protested incorrectly - he would have been far more effective had he
resigned and delivered a blast of a resignation letter. Not only would
he have taken the high road, he would have had the last word. Now, all
we will hear of him until he runs for office or becomes attorney general
is that he was removed from the bench. Sort of a Gary Hart, with
tablets.

What should have happened is that the governor of Alabama should have said
that Roy Moore has broken no state law by having the 10 Commandments in his
courtroom and any court order to remove them would be illegal.
.

User: "Chris Devol"
Title: Re: Religious Atheism and the Separation of Church and State	10 Jan 2005 11:54:45 PM

"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:D5adnbsD99LZ-X7cRVn-uw@rcn.net...

cactus <baldemar.malnariz@ubadlands.edu> wrote in
news:AMIEd.3981$Ii4.919@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:

Osprey wrote:

"cactus" <baldemar.malnariz@ubadlands.edu> wrote in message
news:4eDEd.3671$pZ4.911@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...

Osprey wrote:

"ouroboros rex" <c-bee1@itg.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:cruo4v$af6$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...

"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:quednUc_C_zsQ3_cRVn-og@rcn.net...

rofl I KNEW you had no idea what you are talking about.

"An establishment of religion" means any already-established church
or faith.

What's amazing is many people can blast him for standing up for what
he believed in, yet cheer the mayor in San Fransico for selling
thousands of fake marriage documents to the gays and making probably
millions off of a piece of worthless paper.

Plenty of people blasted Mayor Newsom, and plenty of people cheered
that judge. Don't let your biases interfere with your ability to
listen.

You are probably right.
But the point I am trying to make is this...

Judge Moore, took a utilitarianism approach. He did what he thought was
morally right.
Mayor Newsom, same thing.
The same people that I hear blasting Moore, for doing what he thought
was right are cheering for the Mayor. Both operated on what they
thought was morally right.

I think it's more complicated than that. Newsom was playing to a
political constituency, and IMO doing a bit of grandstanding. I happen
to agree with what he did, since the marriages were civil and not
religious, but his timing was not very good - I think he started
something that contributed to the Democratic presidential loss.

Judge Moore is IMO a different case. He is a jurist, and therefore
should have known better. Presumably he understood the church-state
issues and, as a jurist, he is obligated to support them. He damaged
himself in two ways: first, he compromised his objectivity. A number of
individuals who might have appeared in his court would now ask him to
recuse himself because of his evident religious bias. Second, he
protested incorrectly - he would have been far more effective had he
resigned and delivered a blast of a resignation letter. Not only would
he have taken the high road, he would have had the last word. Now, all
we will hear of him until he runs for office or becomes attorney general
is that he was removed from the bench. Sort of a Gary Hart, with
tablets.

What should have happened is that the governor of Alabama should have said
that Roy Moore has broken no state law by having the 10 Commandments in
his
courtroom and any court order to remove them would be illegal.

The flaw in this is that States are not bound only by State laws. They are
also bound by federal laws which govern all U.S. citizens, and by the U.S.
Constitution.
You have a very naive and distorted view of the structure of the
governmental systems in the United States. You imagine some kind of strict
separation between State and Federal governments which does not exist. The
States are not, and were never intended to be, sovereign countries.
.

User: "Gactimus"
Title: Re: Religious Atheism and the Separation of Church and State	11 Jan 2005 05:10:10 PM

"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote in
news:FSJEd.4130$C52.785@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:

"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:D5adnbsD99LZ-X7cRVn-uw@rcn.net...

cactus <baldemar.malnariz@ubadlands.edu> wrote in
news:AMIEd.3981$Ii4.919@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:

Osprey wrote:

"cactus" <baldemar.malnariz@ubadlands.edu> wrote in message
news:4eDEd.3671$pZ4.911@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...

Osprey wrote:

"ouroboros rex" <c-bee1@itg.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:cruo4v$af6$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...

"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:quednUc_C_zsQ3_cRVn-og@rcn.net...

rofl I KNEW you had no idea what you are talking about.

"An establishment of religion" means any already-established church
or faith.

What's amazing is many people can blast him for standing up for what
he believed in, yet cheer the mayor in San Fransico for selling
thousands of fake marriage documents to the gays and making probably
millions off of a piece of worthless paper.

Plenty of people blasted Mayor Newsom, and plenty of people cheered
that judge. Don't let your biases interfere with your ability to
listen.

You are probably right.
But the point I am trying to make is this...

Judge Moore, took a utilitarianism approach. He did what he thought
was morally right.
Mayor Newsom, same thing.
The same people that I hear blasting Moore, for doing what he thought
was right are cheering for the Mayor. Both operated on what they
thought was morally right.

I think it's more complicated than that. Newsom was playing to a
political constituency, and IMO doing a bit of grandstanding. I
happen to agree with what he did, since the marriages were civil and
not religious, but his timing was not very good - I think he started
something that contributed to the Democratic presidential loss.

Judge Moore is IMO a different case. He is a jurist, and therefore
should have known better. Presumably he understood the church-state
issues and, as a jurist, he is obligated to support them. He damaged
himself in two ways: first, he compromised his objectivity. A number
of individuals who might have appeared in his court would now ask him
to recuse himself because of his evident religious bias. Second, he
protested incorrectly - he would have been far more effective had he
resigned and delivered a blast of a resignation letter. Not only
would he have taken the high road, he would have had the last word.
Now, all we will hear of him until he runs for office or becomes
attorney general is that he was removed from the bench. Sort of a
Gary Hart, with tablets.

What should have happened is that the governor of Alabama should have
said that Roy Moore has broken no state law by having the 10
Commandments in his
courtroom and any court order to remove them would be illegal.

The flaw in this is that States are not bound only by State laws. They
are also bound by federal laws which govern all U.S. citizens, and by
the U.S. Constitution.

You have a very naive and distorted view of the structure of the
governmental systems in the United States. You imagine some kind of
strict separation between State and Federal governments which does not
exist. The States are not, and were never intended to be, sovereign
countries.

That's true, but the first amendment still does not apply to the states, as
shown in the attempted passage of the Blaine Amendment in the late 1800s.
However, most states afford the same first amendment protection to their
residents.
.

User: "Mark Sebree"
Title: Re: Religious Atheism and the Separation of Church and State	11 Jan 2005 12:28:39 AM

Gactimus wrote:

cactus <baldemar.malnariz@ubadlands.edu> wrote in
news:AMIEd.3981$Ii4.919@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:

Osprey wrote:

"cactus" <baldemar.malnariz@ubadlands.edu> wrote in message
news:4eDEd.3671$pZ4.911@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...

Osprey wrote:

"ouroboros rex" <c-bee1@itg.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:cruo4v$af6$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...

"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:quednUc_C_zsQ3_cRVn-og@rcn.net...

After reading about Newdow's new anti-religious lawsuit plans I

was

inspired (not religiously so) with this question...

Does the establishment clause actually imply a separation of

church

and state or is the left yet again trying to trample the
Constitution?"

Answer: The "separation of church and state," as it's

interpreted

today, is
not only wrong, it stands the First Amendment, which was

designed to

protect religious liberties, on its head. The First Amendment

reads,

"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.

So, how does a judge putting the 10 commandments up on his

courtroom

wall
equate to Congress establishing a religion?

rofl I KNEW you had no idea what you are talking about.

"An establishment of religion" means any already-established

church

or faith.

What's amazing is many people can blast him for standing up for

what

he believed in, yet cheer the mayor in San Fransico for selling
thousands of fake marriage documents to the gays and making

probably

millions off of a piece of worthless paper.

Plenty of people blasted Mayor Newsom, and plenty of people

cheered

that judge. Don't let your biases interfere with your ability to
listen.

You are probably right.
But the point I am trying to make is this...

Judge Moore, took a utilitarianism approach. He did what he

thought was

morally right.
Mayor Newsom, same thing.
The same people that I hear blasting Moore, for doing what he

thought

was right are cheering for the Mayor. Both operated on what they
thought was morally right.

I think it's more complicated than that. Newsom was playing to a
political constituency, and IMO doing a bit of grandstanding. I

happen

to agree with what he did, since the marriages were civil and not
religious, but his timing was not very good - I think he started
something that contributed to the Democratic presidential loss.

Judge Moore is IMO a different case. He is a jurist, and therefore
should have known better. Presumably he understood the church-state
issues and, as a jurist, he is obligated to support them. He

damaged

himself in two ways: first, he compromised his objectivity. A

number of

individuals who might have appeared in his court would now ask him

recuse himself because of his evident religious bias. Second, he
protested incorrectly - he would have been far more effective had

resigned and delivered a blast of a resignation letter. Not only

would

he have taken the high road, he would have had the last word. Now,

all

we will hear of him until he runs for office or becomes attorney

general

is that he was removed from the bench. Sort of a Gary Hart, with
tablets.

What should have happened is that the governor of Alabama should have

said

that Roy Moore has broken no state law by having the 10 Commandments

in his

courtroom and any court order to remove them would be illegal.

And the governor would have been lying, since the U.S. Constitution is
binding on state governments as well as the federal government. In
fact, the 14th Amendment specifically states in Article 1, " No State
shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process
of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws."
That means that the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion is
also binding on the states, and the states cannot pass any law or take
any official position that favors or appears to favor any one religion
or belief system over another. And that includes any government
official acting in his or her official capacity. And since Moore was a
judge that had been on the losing side of such a case before, he had no
reason whatsoever not to know this.
Therefore, Moore had no right to promise to put that monument in the
courthouse since it was a blatantly illegal act, and he had no right to
do so. And when he defied federal court orders to remove that
monument, he again knew he was breaking the law.
If that monument had been installed beside the sidewalk on private or
church property across the street from the courthouse, nobody would
have say a thing. The owners of private property and church property
can promote any religion they want, erect any religious monument, and
create any religious display. In fact, churches are pretty much
expected to do these things.
However, courthouses, like other government buildings, belong to ALL
the people, not just a small handful that subscribe to the narrow
minded visions of Moore. And since they belong to all the people,
courts must remain neutral and not even give the appearance of bias.
Even the appearance of bias by the court can be grounds for an appeal,
whether the bias is there or not. And Moore's monument was rather
blatant in giving the appearance of bias in his courtroom.
Therefore, Moore got EXACTLY what he deserved. And if he was honest
with himself, he knew that he would be removed from the bench when
decided to install that idiotic monument and defy the courts.
The fact that he went through with it only shows that he was an idiot
that should never have gotten elected in the first place.
Mark Sebree
.

User: "Johnny"
Title: Re: Religious Atheism and the Separation of Church and State	11 Jan 2005 07:31:43 AM

Sebree is a liar.
.

User: "Mark Sebree"
Title: Re: Religious Atheism and the Separation of Church and State	11 Jan 2005 09:46:56 AM

Johnny wrote:

Sebree is a liar.

You are only saying that because you cannot intimidate me or bully me,
and I have consistantly shown that I am more intelligent than you, and
that I can shred your points with ease and find the holes in your
so-called logic. I have also shown that you cannot support what you
state when what you state is questioned intelligently, and you are not
allowed to weasel out of providing support.
Basically, you are lying because you cannot stand the truth.
Mark Sebree
.

User: "Johnny"
Title: Re: Religious Atheism and the Separation of Church and State	11 Jan 2005 12:55:45 PM

--
----------
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1105458416.088848.230330@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Johnny wrote:

Sebree is a liar.

You are only saying that because you cannot intimidate me or bully me,
and I have consistantly shown that I am more intelligent than you,

Another lie.

and
that I can shred your points with ease and find the holes in your
so-called logic.

Another lie.

I have also shown that you cannot support what you
state when what you state is questioned intelligently, and you are not
allowed to weasel out of providing support.

Another lie.

Basically, you are lying because you cannot stand the truth.
Mark Sebree

Another lie.
.

User: "Mark Sebree"
Title: Re: Religious Atheism and the Separation of Church and State	11 Jan 2005 01:18:30 PM

Johnny wrote:

--
----------
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1105458416.088848.230330@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Johnny wrote:

Sebree is a liar.

You are only saying that because you cannot intimidate me or bully

me,

and I have consistantly shown that I am more intelligent than you,

Another lie.

A fact.

and
that I can shred your points with ease and find the holes in your
so-called logic.

Another lie.

A fact.

I have also shown that you cannot support what you
state when what you state is questioned intelligently, and you are

not

allowed to weasel out of providing support.

Another lie.

A fact. You resort to evasions and name calling when questioned and
cornered. You completely failed to support your assertion that married
homosexuals would have more rights that married heterosexuals, for
example. Instead, you resorted to petty distractive tactics, which did
not work, and childish name calling.
Therefore, I have chown that you cannot support what you state when
questioned intelligently, because you did not.
You also have not been able to show that I have lied about anything,
which means that my statement about your petty distractive tactics and
name calling is also accurate, since you have just demonstrated it.

Basically, you are lying because you cannot stand the truth.
Mark Sebree

Another lie.

Well, the fact that you are lying is rather obvious. My statement that
you cannot stand the truth is based on supposition based on your
posting history to me and others that present facts that you find
uncomfortable.
You have failed to show that anything that I have said is a lie. Your
assertion is worthless without supporting evidence.
Mark Sebree
.

User: "Johnny"
Title: Re: Religious Atheism and the Separation of Church and State	11 Jan 2005 08:23:25 PM

"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1105471110.568169.306430@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Johnny wrote:

--
----------
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1105458416.088848.230330@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Johnny wrote:

Sebree is a liar.

You are only saying that because you cannot intimidate me or bully

me,

and I have consistantly shown that I am more intelligent than you,

Another lie.

A fact.

Yes. That you lie is a fact.

and
that I can shred your points with ease and find the holes in your
so-called logic.

Another lie.

A fact.

See above.

I have also shown that you cannot support what you
state when what you state is questioned intelligently, and you are

not

allowed to weasel out of providing support.

Another lie.

A fact.

Thank you for admitting you lied.

You resort to evasions and name calling when questioned and
cornered. You completely failed to support your assertion that married
homosexuals would have more rights that married heterosexuals, for
example. Instead, you resorted to petty distractive tactics, which did
not work, and childish name calling.

Another lie.

Therefore, I have chown that you cannot support what you state when
questioned intelligently, because you did not.

Another lie.

You also have not been able to show that I have lied about anything,
which means that my statement about your petty distractive tactics and
name calling is also accurate, since you have just demonstrated it.

Another lie.

Basically, you are lying because you cannot stand the truth.
Mark Sebree

Another lie.

Well, the fact that you are lying is rather obvious.

It is not in my character to lie.

My statement that
you cannot stand the truth is based on supposition based on your
posting history to me and others that present facts that you find
uncomfortable.

LOL!
Me, uncomfortable?
Why are you the one on a crusade?

You have failed to show that anything that I have said is a lie. Your
assertion is worthless without supporting evidence.

More lies.
.

User: "Mark Sebree"
Title: Re: Religious Atheism and the Separation of Church and State	11 Jan 2005 11:34:46 PM

Johnny wrote:

"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1105471110.568169.306430@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Johnny wrote:

--
----------
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1105458416.088848.230330@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Johnny wrote:

Sebree is a liar.

You are only saying that because you cannot intimidate me or

bully

me,

and I have consistantly shown that I am more intelligent than

you,

Another lie.

A fact.

Yes. That you lie is a fact.

No, you are the only liar. My statement that you are calling me a liar
because you cannot defend you position against someone that cannot be
intimidated or bullied, and is intelligent and well-educated stands.
You have yet to show that I have lied. Therefore, your accusation is
baseless.

and
that I can shred your points with ease and find the holes in

your

so-called logic.

Another lie.

A fact.

See above.

I did. You have only shown that you cannot defend your position, so
you have resorted to name calling.

I have also shown that you cannot support what you
state when what you state is questioned intelligently, and you

are

not

allowed to weasel out of providing support.

Another lie.

A fact.

Thank you for admitting you lied.

I have never admitted to lying in this forum, because I have not lied
in this forum. I have, in fact, shown that you cannot support what you
state when you are questioned about it in an intelligent manner, and I
have shown that you try to weasel out of providing support for your
position when you are asked for intelligent support.

You resort to evasions and name calling when questioned and
cornered. You completely failed to support your assertion that

married

homosexuals would have more rights that married heterosexuals, for
example. Instead, you resorted to petty distractive tactics, which

did

not work, and childish name calling.

Another lie.

Sorry. My statement is the truth. It is an accurate description of
the tactics that you tried on me before you ran away.

Therefore, I have shown that you cannot support what you state when
questioned intelligently, because you did not.

Another lie.

Wrong again. That is a factual statement about your tactics. You
cannot support what you state when your position is questioned in an
intelligent manner. And that statement is based on your posts in this
forum.

You also have not been able to show that I have lied about

anything,

which means that my statement about your petty distractive tactics

and

name calling is also accurate, since you have just demonstrated it.

Another lie.

A fact. Those are the very tactics that you are using in this thread.

Basically, you are lying because you cannot stand the truth.
Mark Sebree

Another lie.

Well, the fact that you are lying is rather obvious.

It is not in my character to lie.

And yet you do so constantly. Your accusations that I am a liar
without any supporting evidence shows that you are.

My statement that
you cannot stand the truth is based on supposition based on your
posting history to me and others that present facts that you find
uncomfortable.

LOL!
Me, uncomfortable?

Yes, you are uncomfortable. You are the one that has resorted to
running away, name calling

Why are you the one on a crusade?

I am not. I am working to support and continue expanded freedoms and
equality for everyone. That means and includes, among other things,
that women are not forced to continue unwanted pregnancies and
homosexuals can marry the consenting adult that they desire.

You have failed to show that anything that I have said is a lie.

Your

assertion is worthless without supporting evidence.

More lies.

Sorry, but again I am telling the truth. You have failed to show that
anything that I have said is a lie. And without supporting evidence,
your assertion is worthless.
You should really stop lying, little Johnny. It only harms your
already poor reputation.
Mark Sebree
.

User: "Johnny"
Title: Re: Religious Atheism and the Separation of Church and State	12 Jan 2005 04:03:59 AM

"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1105508086.577135.244510@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Johnny wrote:

"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1105471110.568169.306430@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Johnny wrote:

--
----------
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1105458416.088848.230330@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Johnny wrote:

Sebree is a liar.

You are only saying that because you cannot intimidate me or

bully

me,

and I have consistantly shown that I am more intelligent than

you,

Another lie.

A fact.

Yes. That you lie is a fact.

No, you are the only liar.

Wrong.

My statement that you are calling me a liar
because you cannot defend you position against someone that cannot be
intimidated or bullied, and is intelligent and well-educated stands.

It didn't stand the first time.

You have yet to show that I have lied.

Not true.

Therefore, your accusation is
baseless.

Untrue.

and
that I can shred your points with ease and find the holes in

your

so-called logic.

Another lie.

A fact.

See above.

I did. You have only shown that you cannot defend your position, so
you have resorted to name calling.

Truth is not easy for you to accept.

I have also shown that you cannot support what you
state when what you state is questioned intelligently, and you

are

not

allowed to weasel out of providing support.

Another lie.

A fact.

Thank you for admitting you lied.

I have never admitted to lying in this forum, because I have not lied
in this forum.

You just did. After I typed "Another lie" you agreed with "A fact."
Thanks.

I have, in fact,

Untrue.

shown that you cannot support what you
state

Untrue.

when you are questioned

Untrue.

about it in an intelligent manner, and I
have shown that you try to weasel out of providing support for your
position when you are asked for intelligent support.

Untrue.

You resort to evasions and name calling when questioned and
cornered. You completely failed to support your assertion that

married

homosexuals would have more rights that married heterosexuals, for
example. Instead, you resorted to petty distractive tactics, which

did

not work, and childish name calling.

Another lie.

Sorry.

Because you lie so much?

My statement is the truth.

Not even close.

It is an accurate description of
the tactics that you tried on me before you ran away.

Tactics?
Why are you so paranoid?

Therefore, I have shown that you cannot support what you state when
questioned intelligently, because you did not.

Another lie.

Wrong again.

We can not both be wrong. So, accept the fact that you are the one who is
lying.

That is a factual statement about your tactics.

Tactics?
You are too paranoid.

You
cannot support what you state when your position is questioned in an
intelligent manner.

Another lie.

And that statement is based on your posts in this
forum.

You also have not been able to show that I have lied about

anything,

which means that my statement about your petty distractive tactics

and

name calling is also accurate, since you have just demonstrated it.

Another lie.

A fact.

I know that you lied is a fact.

Those are the very tactics that you are using in this thread.

Tactics?

Basically, you are lying because you cannot stand the truth.
Mark Sebree

Another lie.

Well, the fact that you are lying is rather obvious.

It is not in my character to lie.

And yet you do so constantly.

Not true.

Your accusations that I am a liar

Are easily seen to be true.

without any supporting evidence shows that you are.

You are the one who is providing the more than abundant evidence.

My statement that
you cannot stand the truth is based on supposition based on your
posting history to me and others that present facts that you find
uncomfortable.

LOL!
Me, uncomfortable?

Yes, you are uncomfortable. You are the one that has resorted to
running away, name calling

LOL!!!!!!!
I am still here.
Why does the truth bother you so much when it goes against you?

Why are you the one on a crusade?

I am not.

What a crybaby you are.

I am working to support and continue expanded freedoms and
equality for everyone.

Untrue.

That means and includes, among other things,
that women are not forced to continue unwanted pregnancies and
homosexuals can marry the consenting adult that they desire.

Very much unjust.

You have failed to show that anything that I have said is a lie.

Your

assertion is worthless without supporting evidence.

More lies.

Sorry, but again I am telling the truth.

Not in fact.

You have failed to show that
anything that I have said is a lie.

For you to be a liar does not require me showing you anything.
You would use your unfounded, untruthful, unreasonable statements to say
"No. It's the truth, because I say so." in your crybaby, if yo udon;t get
your way you will throw a temper tantrum, and more and more people are not
willing to allow you to get by with such evil tactics.

And without supporting evidence,
your assertion is worthless.

You're trash already.

You should really stop lying, little Johnny. It only harms your
already poor reputation.

No way I will be as bad as you are.
.

User: "L. Michael Roberts"
Title: Re: Religious Atheism and the Separation of Church and State	11 Jan 2005 12:41:18 PM

Johnny wrote:

Sebree is a liar.

Please point out exactly where he lies in his previous post!
--
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+================================================================+
.

User: "Johnny"
Title: Re: Religious Atheism and the Separation of Church and State	11 Jan 2005 12:56:14 PM

--
----------
"L. Michael Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:gcWdnQeq-P9TgHncRVn-jg@golden.net...

Johnny wrote:

Sebree is a liar.

Please point out exactly where he lies in his previous post!

Why?
Are you too lazy to look into it yourself?
.

User: "Patrick Lee Humphrey"
Title: Re: Religious Atheism and the Separation of Church and State	11 Jan 2005 03:22:12 PM

"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:

"L. Michael Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:gcWdnQeq-P9TgHncRVn-jg@golden.net...

Johnny wrote:

Sebree is a liar.

Please point out exactly where he lies in his previous post!

Why?
Are you too lazy to look into it yourself?

You obviously can't support any assertion you've made. Mark dusted you
without breaking a sweat.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2004-05 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Worcester 1, Houston 0 (January 9)
NEXT GAME: Tuesday, January 11 vs. Milwaukee, 7:05
.

User: "Johnny"
Title: Re: Religious Atheism and the Separation of Church and State	11 Jan 2005 08:24:56 PM

--
----------
"Patrick Lee Humphrey" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkk6qjbr0b.fsf@fnord.io.com...

"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:

"L. Michael Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:gcWdnQeq-P9TgHncRVn-jg@golden.net...

Johnny wrote:

Sebree is a liar.

Please point out exactly where he lies in his previous post!

Why?
Are you too lazy to look into it yourself?

You obviously can't support any assertion you've made. Mark dusted you
without breaking a sweat.

Mark never dusted me.
Funny how you people come to one another's defense when you are outmatched.
Killing babies and homosexuality have been doomed so many times, you are
nothing but a walk over for me.
This is a cake-walk.
I know I will win.
.

User: "Patrick Lee Humphrey"
Title: Re: Religious Atheism and the Separation of Church and State	12 Jan 2005 12:29:36 AM

"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:

"Patrick Lee Humphrey" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkk6qjbr0b.fsf@fnord.io.com...

"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:

"L. Michael Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:gcWdnQeq-P9TgHncRVn-jg@golden.net...

Johnny wrote:

Sebree is a liar.

Please point out exactly where he lies in his previous post!

Why? Are you too lazy to look into it yourself?

You obviously can't support any assertion you've made. Mark dusted you
without breaking a sweat.

Mark never dusted me.

You're writhing like an ant with a gallon of malathion dumped on it.

Funny how you people come to one another's defense when you are outmatched.

You're outmatched by house plants, if your arguments are any indication.

Killing babies and homosexuality have been doomed so many times, you are
nothing but a walk over for me.

So, where have I killed any babies, precisely? After all, if you don't report
me, you might be obstructing justice...

This is a cake-walk. I know I will win.

....just like the Austrian with the funny little mustache, 60 years ago. If
you want to wind up like he did, that's your choice. Quit making it anyone
else's problem.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2004-05 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Houston 7, Milwaukee 0 (January 11)
NEXT GAME: Friday, January 14 vs. Manitoba, 7:35
.

User: "Johnny"
Title: Re: Religious Atheism and the Separation of Church and State	12 Jan 2005 04:07:34 AM

"Patrick Lee Humphrey" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkmzvfgnxr.fsf@fnord.io.com...

"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:

"Patrick Lee Humphrey" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkk6qjbr0b.fsf@fnord.io.com...

"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:

"L. Michael Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:gcWdnQeq-P9TgHncRVn-jg@golden.net...

Johnny wrote:

Sebree is a liar.

Please point out exactly where he lies in his previous post!

Why? Are you too lazy to look into it yourself?

You obviously can't support any assertion you've made. Mark dusted you
without breaking a sweat.

Mark never dusted me.

You're writhing like an ant with a gallon of malathion dumped on it.

How so?
I do not work for liars.

Funny how you people come to one another's defense when you are
outmatched.

You're outmatched by house plants, if your arguments are any indication.

Killing babies and homosexuality have been doomed so many times, you are
nothing but a walk over for me.

So, where have I killed any babies, precisely?

How would I know?

After all, if you don't report
me, you might be obstructing justice...

How so?

This is a cake-walk. I know I will win.

...just like the Austrian with the funny little mustache, 60 years ago.

Your hero, huh?

If
you want to wind up like he did, that's your choice. Quit making it
anyone
else's problem.

What problem?
.

User: "Patrick Lee Humphrey"
Title: Re: Religious Atheism and the Separation of Church and State	12 Jan 2005 10:39:12 AM

"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:

"Patrick Lee Humphrey" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkmzvfgnxr.fsf@fnord.io.com...

"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:

"Patrick Lee Humphrey" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkk6qjbr0b.fsf@fnord.io.com...

"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:

"L. Michael Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:gcWdnQeq-P9TgHncRVn-jg@golden.net...

Johnny wrote:

Sebree is a liar.

Please point out exactly where he lies in his previous post!

Why? Are you too lazy to look into it yourself?

You obviously can't support any assertion you've made. Mark dusted you
without breaking a sweat.

Mark never dusted me.

You're writhing like an ant with a gallon of malathion dumped on it.

How so? I do not work for liars.

You don't work for anyone. You're too busy leeching off your neighbors and
expecting them to carry your load.

Funny how you people come to one another's defense when you are
outmatched.

You're outmatched by house plants, if your arguments are any indication.

Killing babies and homosexuality have been doomed so many times, you are
nothing but a walk over for me.

So, where have I killed any babies, precisely?

How would I know?

You're the psychotic babbler who makes the assertions while refusing to
support them in the least. Be thankful you're getting any respect at all,
with that attitude of yours.

After all, if you don't report me, you might be obstructing justice...

How so?

If I'm supposedly committing a crime (at least by your nonsensical
definition), you have an obligation to report me to the appropriate
authorities.

This is a cake-walk. I know I will win.

...just like the Austrian with the funny little mustache, 60 years ago.

Your hero, huh?

You're the insane nutter who promotes his attitudes far more than any
pro-choicers. Since you're on record as stating that you don't have to prove
your assertions, I guess I can claim you owe me $500 million...and your
laughable excuse of a "corporation" at incomeasap.com. (What does it say when
you were the only bidder...on your own company's stock? It doesn't say what
you want people to think about you, that much is certain.)

If you want to wind up like he did, that's your choice. Quit making it
anyone else's problem.

What problem?

You're not just playing stupid, are you? Oh, well...
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2004-05 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Houston 7, Milwaukee 0 (January 11)
NEXT GAME: Friday, January 14 vs. Manitoba, 7:35
.

User: "Ray Fischer"
Title: Re: Religious Atheism and the Separation of Church and State	11 Jan 2005 10:57:48 PM

Johnny <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:

"Patrick Lee Humphrey" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message

"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:

"L. Michael Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@nospam.com> wrote in message

Johnny wrote:

Sebree is a liar.

Please point out exactly where he lies in his previous post!

Why?
Are you too lazy to look into it yourself?

You obviously can't support any assertion you've made. Mark dusted you
without breaking a sweat.

Mark never dusted me.
Funny how you people come to one another's defense when you are outmatched.

Funny how you made a claim that you cannot support.

Killing babies and homosexuality have been doomed so many times, you are

And so the pro-liar moron screeches the usual hate.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.

User: "Johnny"
Title: Re: Religious Atheism and the Separation of Church and State	12 Jan 2005 04:05:51 AM

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cs2aob$d1$1@bolt.sonic.net...

Johnny <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:

"Patrick Lee Humphrey" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message

"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:

"L. Michael Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@nospam.com> wrote in message

Johnny wrote:

Sebree is a liar.

Please point out exactly where he lies in his previous post!

Why?
Are you too lazy to look into it yourself?

You obviously can't support any assertion you've made. Mark dusted you
without breaking a sweat.

Mark never dusted me.
Funny how you people come to one another's defense when you are
outmatched.

Funny how you made a claim that you cannot support.

Killing babies and homosexuality have been doomed so many times, you are

And so the pro-liar moron screeches the usual hate.

Love warns while those who hate love cause problems.
.