| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
04 Nov 2005 10:36:20 AM |
| Object: |
A Fred Clone: Christmas, the ACLU & Civil Disobedience |
Theocrats in action
http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd135.htm
CHRISTMAS, THE ACLU & CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE
By: Devvy
November 3, 2005
NewsWithViews.com
"[How] to check these unconstitutional invasions of... rights by the
Federal judiciary? Not by impeachment in the first instance, but by a
strong protestation of both houses of Congress that such and such doctrines
advanced by the Supreme Court are contrary to the Constitution; and if
afterwards they relapse into the same heresies, impeach and set the whole
adrift. For what was the government divided into three branches, but that
each should watch over the others and oppose their usurpations?" --Thomas
Jefferson to Nathaniel Macon, 1821. (*) FE 10:192
[snip]
The Christmas season is about to be launched and already the atheists and
people of other religions are cranking up with their demands that there be
no Christmas decorations, pageants or any other sign of Christianity in
Christmas next month in these united States of America. I have no doubt the
American Communist Lawyers Union (ACLU) is licking their chops, just
waiting to swoop down on some elementary school planning a Christmas play.
I say it's high time to make this Christmas season one of massive civil
disobedience and take a stand, just like Mrs. Rosa Parks did so many
decades ago.
This whole 'separation of church and state' garbage spewed by ignorant
people and backed by the communists in this country masquerading as
liberals over any display of Christianity or the Ten Commandments is bogus.
In 1909, Teddy Roosevelt, America's 26th president said: "I believe that
the next half century will determine if we will advance the cause of
Christian civilization or revert to the horrors of brutal paganism."
The process to begin dismantling our Christian nation didn't take a half
century. Efforts to crush all national sovereignty, promote unity amongst
Americans of all religions, denigrate patriotism and push a Godless society
upon our land began in 1947 and the assault has been relentless. A case
known as Everson v. Board of Education [330 U.S. 1, 18 (1947)] started it
all. Prior to this case, Americans cherished their Christian heritage,
culture and celebrations. In the Everson case, a New Jersey State law
authorized local school districts to make arrangements and rules for
transporting children to public and private nonprofit schools. One school
district, Ewing Township, directed students to use the public bus system to
get to and from school, and then reimbursed their parents for the costs.
The township made payments to parents of both public school students and
students of private, Catholic schools - payments that were permitted under
State law.
A Mr. Everson, taxpayer and misguided dupe, brought forth his silly
assertion that busing children to both public and private schools would
bring about the establishment of a state religion. Everson brought suit
against the Board of Education. In State court, he argued that money
collected as taxes for public education was being used instead to help
support students of private schools—private schools that provided religious
education on behalf of a particular church.
Everson claimed that the payments to parents of parochial school students
violated the constitutional guarantee against the "establishment" of a
religion contained in the First Amendment. The school board, Everson
believed, had violated the constitutionally guaranteed "separation of
church and state." The issue was finally addressed by the U.S. Supreme
Court.
Tragically for this Republic, the Supreme Court hallucinated the following
in their ruling and announced that: "...the First Amendment has enacted a
'wall' between church and state that must be kept high and impregnable. We
could not approve the slightest breach thereof. We could not approve the
slightest breach. New Jersey has not breached it here." Huh?
Justice Black delivered the opinion of the court which had some rather
convoluted language justifying their position:
"The New Jersey statute is challenged as a "law respecting an establishment
of religion." The First Amendment, as made applicable to the states by the
Fourteenth, commands that a state "shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .
.."
The Fourteenth Amendment states in part: "No State shall make or enforce
any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States;"
The Fourteenth Amendment created a second class of "citizen", an important
distinction few people understand. The 1947 Supreme Court took the position
that the freedom to worship is a privilege, not a God-given right.
The Everson decision unconstitutionally and dramatically expanded the role
of the federal courts without any authority and completely ignored the very
precise wording in the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion..."
Congress wasn't attempting to ‘make any law respecting an establishment of
religion' as cited in the First Amendment in the Everson case.
Please note there is no language about the states of the Union establishing
a religion - only Congress. But, the 1947 Supreme Court used the Fourteenth
Amendment to slip through the precise wording of the First Amendment.
I have never seen a single case or attempt by Congress to establish any
religion that all Americans must worship. Never. Nor have I ever seen any
Congress attempt to establish a mandated federal religion of any
denomination. Never.
I have seen the ACLU swoop down on local school districts and threaten
lawsuits if the children put on a Christmas display on school grounds or if
a school wants to lead a prayer before a football game.
How could anyone interpret second graders or the teachers at Mainstream
America Elementary School putting up a nativity display translate to
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"?
Congress has no presence at this elementary school displaying a Nativity
Scene attempting to make a law establishing any religion.
How could anyone interpret a school district which allows decades old
traditions like saying a prayer before a high school or college football
game as a violation of "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion"? The prohibiting of a basketball coach
sponsoring prayer at end of games and practices has absolutely nothing to
with Congress standing in the locker room where a prayer is said attempting
to make any law establishing any religion.
Post the Ten Commandments on classroom wall or even a court house and the
AU or ACLU will come with a vengeance threatening a lawsuit and if they
win, you will be forced to pay their legal costs - in some case hundreds of
thousands of dollars. How could anyone interpret the posting of the Ten
Commandments in any class room or court house as a violation of "Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"? Congress has no
presence at any school room or court house attempting to make a law
establishing any religion.
Have you ever seen Congress attempt to pass a law establishing a religion
based upon kids at a local elementary school displaying the Nativity or
jocks in the locker room saying a prayer? The whole argument is bull. In
order for there to be a violation of "church and state" relating to the
First Amendment, the House of Representatives would have to introduce
legislation which would establish a religion for the united States of
America. The Senate would introduce their version and if passed, a sitting
president would then have to sign such a bill into law establishing a
religion for these united States of America. Have you ever seen or heard
Congress ever attempt to do such a thing? Can one not see now how absurd
the Everson decision was and how destructive that decision has been for
this republic?
The list of examples is a million miles long and it all began in 1947.
Teddy Roosevelt said in 1909 that the next half century would determine
whether or not "[America] we will advance the cause of Christian
civilization or revert to the horrors of brutal paganism." It only took 38
short years for the communists to make their move to turn America into a
godless state backed up by a few black robbed gods sitting in a court room.
It's most unfortunate the gutless, counterfeit U.S. Senate back then didn't
move immediately to impeach every judge who voted for this upside down
ruling because it was bogus then and it is bogus now.
America is a Christian nation and it was founded on Christian doctrine. To
attempt to say otherwise is to deny the very existence of our Republic and
history. Let me ask liberals and politicians a question: What if 100,000
Catholics went to Israel and demanded that Israel become a Catholic
country? . . .
[end of excerpt]
*********************************************************************************
*****************************************************************
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: "cpt banjo" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fred Clone: Christmas, the ACLU & Civil Disobedience |
04 Nov 2005 11:32:30 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Theocrats in action
The Everson decision unconstitutionally and dramatically expanded the role
of the federal courts without any authority and completely ignored the very
precise wording in the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion..."
Congress wasn't attempting to 'make any law respecting an establishment of
religion' as cited in the First Amendment in the Everson case.
Please note there is no language about the states of the Union establishing
a religion - only Congress. But, the 1947 Supreme Court used the Fourteenth
Amendment to slip through the precise wording of the First Amendment.
What Devvy the chowderhead doesn't seem to realize is that if the First
Amendment, unaffected by the 14th, applies only to Congress, than any
state could make it a crime to practice a particular religion (it could
also prohibit free speech and press).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fred Clone: Christmas, the ACLU & Civil Disobedience |
04 Nov 2005 11:56:24 AM |
|
|
In article <1131125550.842033.81790@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "cpt banjo" <cptbanjo@aol.com> writes:
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
Theocrats in action
The Everson decision unconstitutionally and dramatically expanded the role
of the federal courts without any authority and completely ignored the very
precise wording in the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion..."
Congress wasn't attempting to 'make any law respecting an establishment of
religion' as cited in the First Amendment in the Everson case.
Please note there is no language about the states of the Union establishing
a religion - only Congress. But, the 1947 Supreme Court used the Fourteenth
Amendment to slip through the precise wording of the First Amendment.
What Devvy the chowderhead doesn't seem to realize is that if the First
Amendment, unaffected by the 14th, applies only to Congress, than any
state could make it a crime to practice a particular religion (it could
also prohibit free speech and press).
Well, yes...but that would be entirely consistent with the intentions of
the Founding Fathers.
What? No no no, not THOSE Founding Fathers: I'm talking about the pre-Founding
Fathers, the ones who set up the various colonies, frequently with
quite repressive religious ordinances (see, for example, the
treatment of Baptists -- Anabaptists -- in Massachusetts)
I'm guessing that Fred's attitude torwards this might be something
like "Hey, it's their right."
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Pennington" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fred Clone: Christmas, the ACLU & Civil Disobedience |
04 Nov 2005 02:36:34 PM |
|
|
Quoth cpt banjo <cptbanjo@aol.com>:
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
Theocrats in action
The Everson decision unconstitutionally and dramatically expanded the role
of the federal courts without any authority and completely ignored the very
precise wording in the First Amendment: "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."
Congress wasn't attempting to 'make any law respecting an establishment of
religion' as cited in the First Amendment in the Everson case.
Please note there is no language about the states of the Union establishing
a religion - only Congress. But, the 1947 Supreme Court used the Fourteenth
Amendment to slip through the precise wording of the First Amendment.
What Devvy the chowderhead doesn't seem to realize is that if the First
Amendment, unaffected by the 14th, applies only to Congress, than any
state could make it a crime to practice a particular religion (it could
also prohibit free speech and press).
Oh, they don't seem to be the sort who would mind bringing back the
days when being a Baptist in Massachusetts was grounds for
imprisonment. Anyone wishing to live in a place where "no person ...
shall be in any wise molested, punished disquieted, or called in
question, for any differences of opinion in matters of religion"
can move to Rhode Island!
There's a reason early Baptists in the US were such strong proponents
of the Rights of Conscience. Those who think that the States are free to
set up religious establishments, infringe on the free exercise of
religion, control the press, outlaw peacable assemblies and refuse to
allow people to petition their Governments for a redress of grievances
are dangerously ignorant.
They seek to invoke a narrow interpretation of individual liberties and
a broad interpretation of Government power that completely ignores the
context of the arguments for the Rights of Conscience made at the time
of the founding of the Union. They make no positive argument for State
establishments. They leave unsaid the implications of their (incorrect)
argument asserting Federal impotence in the face of a State attempt at
a religious establishment for the free exercise and other clauses of the
First Amendment. Implicit in their argument is the assumption
(explicitly rejected by the 9th Amendment) that the Constitution
enumerates all rights retained by the people.
State governments do not have and have never had the authority to
infringe on any unalienable rights. The rights of conscience are
unalienable.
Cheers,
Craig
--
Corollary to Clarke's Third Law:
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently
advanced.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fred Clone: Christmas, the ACLU & Civil Disobedience |
04 Nov 2005 02:42:11 PM |
|
|
In article <8tss33-b4u.ln1@nazg.milo.org> Craig Pennington <cpenning@milo.org> writes:
Quoth cpt banjo <cptbanjo@aol.com>:
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
Theocrats in action
The Everson decision unconstitutionally and dramatically expanded the role
of the federal courts without any authority and completely ignored the very
precise wording in the First Amendment: "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."
Congress wasn't attempting to 'make any law respecting an establishment of
religion' as cited in the First Amendment in the Everson case.
Please note there is no language about the states of the Union establishing
a religion - only Congress. But, the 1947 Supreme Court used the Fourteenth
Amendment to slip through the precise wording of the First Amendment.
What Devvy the chowderhead doesn't seem to realize is that if the First
Amendment, unaffected by the 14th, applies only to Congress, than any
state could make it a crime to practice a particular religion (it could
also prohibit free speech and press).
Oh, they don't seem to be the sort who would mind bringing back the
days when being a Baptist in Massachusetts was grounds for
imprisonment. Anyone wishing to live in a place where "no person ...
shall be in any wise molested, punished disquieted, or called in
question, for any differences of opinion in matters of religion"
can move to Rhode Island!
And recalcitrant Quakers could be hanged, which I imagine is most
diquieting.
There's a reason early Baptists in the US were such strong proponents
of the Rights of Conscience. Those who think that the States are free to
set up religious establishments, infringe on the free exercise of
religion, control the press, outlaw peacable assemblies and refuse to
allow people to petition their Governments for a redress of grievances
are dangerously ignorant.
They seek to invoke a narrow interpretation of individual liberties and
a broad interpretation of Government power that completely ignores the
context of the arguments for the Rights of Conscience made at the time
of the founding of the Union. They make no positive argument for State
establishments. They leave unsaid the implications of their (incorrect)
argument asserting Federal impotence in the face of a State attempt at
a religious establishment for the free exercise and other clauses of the
First Amendment. Implicit in their argument is the assumption
(explicitly rejected by the 9th Amendment) that the Constitution
enumerates all rights retained by the people.
State governments do not have and have never had the authority to
infringe on any unalienable rights. The rights of conscience are
unalienable.
Very well said.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fred Clone: Christmas, the ACLU & Civil Disobedience |
04 Nov 2005 12:41:42 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Theocrats in action
http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd135.htm
CHRISTMAS, THE ACLU & CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE
[snip]
The Christmas season is about to be launched and already the atheists and
people of other religions are cranking up with their demands that there be
no Christmas decorations, pageants or any other sign of Christianity in
Christmas next month in these united States of America.
Total and absolute lie. The lawsuits are against the *unconstitutional endorsement of
religion by government agencies.* I, and I am willing to bet most every other atheist
in the United States, don't give a snake's fart about the presence or existence of
Christmas decorations, pageants, etc. What we do care about is when these things are
presented at public expense, in violation of the First Amendment. As for
private-sector displays, I really don't care. Just don't be surprised when I refuse
to shop with you when you start up the Christmas displays and muzak the first week of
November :-p
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"[W]e have never held that moral disapproval, without any other asserted
state interest, is a sufficient rationale under the Equal Protection
Clause to justify a law that discriminates among groups of persons."
- Sandra Day O`Conner, _Lawrence v Texas_
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=02-102
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fred Clone: Christmas, the ACLU & Civil Disobedience |
04 Nov 2005 04:11:52 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 10:36:20 -0600, wrote:
Theocrats in action
http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd135.htm
CHRISTMAS, THE ACLU & CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE
By: Devvy
Devvy is just great!
You can gaze into her eyes (even on the Internet) and, after a
while, one generally realizes that there is no one at home.
Gray Shockley
---------------------------------
Everything is always the worst it's ever been.
November 3, 2005
NewsWithViews.com
"[How] to check these unconstitutional invasions of... rights by the
Federal judiciary? Not by impeachment in the first instance, but by a
strong protestation of both houses of Congress that such and such doctrines
advanced by the Supreme Court are contrary to the Constitution; and if
afterwards they relapse into the same heresies, impeach and set the whole
adrift. For what was the government divided into three branches, but that
each should watch over the others and oppose their usurpations?" --Thomas
Jefferson to Nathaniel Macon, 1821. (*) FE 10:192
[snip]
The Christmas season is about to be launched and already the atheists and
people of other religions are cranking up with their demands that there be
no Christmas decorations, pageants or any other sign of Christianity in
Christmas next month in these united States of America. I have no doubt the
American Communist Lawyers Union (ACLU) is licking their chops, just
waiting to swoop down on some elementary school planning a Christmas play.
I say it's high time to make this Christmas season one of massive civil
disobedience and take a stand, just like Mrs. Rosa Parks did so many
decades ago.
This whole 'separation of church and state' garbage spewed by ignorant
people and backed by the communists in this country masquerading as
liberals over any display of Christianity or the Ten Commandments is bogus.
In 1909, Teddy Roosevelt, America's 26th president said: "I believe that
the next half century will determine if we will advance the cause of
Christian civilization or revert to the horrors of brutal paganism."
The process to begin dismantling our Christian nation didn't take a half
century. Efforts to crush all national sovereignty, promote unity amongst
Americans of all religions, denigrate patriotism and push a Godless society
upon our land began in 1947 and the assault has been relentless. A case
known as Everson v. Board of Education [330 U.S. 1, 18 (1947)] started it
all. Prior to this case, Americans cherished their Christian heritage,
culture and celebrations. In the Everson case, a New Jersey State law
authorized local school districts to make arrangements and rules for
transporting children to public and private nonprofit schools. One school
district, Ewing Township, directed students to use the public bus system to
get to and from school, and then reimbursed their parents for the costs.
The township made payments to parents of both public school students and
students of private, Catholic schools - payments that were permitted under
State law.
A Mr. Everson, taxpayer and misguided dupe, brought forth his silly
assertion that busing children to both public and private schools would
bring about the establishment of a state religion. Everson brought suit
against the Board of Education. In State court, he argued that money
collected as taxes for public education was being used instead to help
support students of private schools—private schools that provided religious
education on behalf of a particular church.
Everson claimed that the payments to parents of parochial school students
violated the constitutional guarantee against the "establishment" of a
religion contained in the First Amendment. The school board, Everson
believed, had violated the constitutionally guaranteed "separation of
church and state." The issue was finally addressed by the U.S. Supreme
Court.
Tragically for this Republic, the Supreme Court hallucinated the following
in their ruling and announced that: "...the First Amendment has enacted a
'wall' between church and state that must be kept high and impregnable. We
could not approve the slightest breach thereof. We could not approve the
slightest breach. New Jersey has not breached it here." Huh?
Justice Black delivered the opinion of the court which had some rather
convoluted language justifying their position:
"The New Jersey statute is challenged as a "law respecting an establishment
of religion." The First Amendment, as made applicable to the states by the
Fourteenth, commands that a state "shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .
."
The Fourteenth Amendment states in part: "No State shall make or enforce
any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States;"
The Fourteenth Amendment created a second class of "citizen", an important
distinction few people understand. The 1947 Supreme Court took the position
that the freedom to worship is a privilege, not a God-given right.
The Everson decision unconstitutionally and dramatically expanded the role
of the federal courts without any authority and completely ignored the very
precise wording in the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion..."
Congress wasn't attempting to ‘make any law respecting an establishment of
religion' as cited in the First Amendment in the Everson case.
Please note there is no language about the states of the Union establishing
a religion - only Congress. But, the 1947 Supreme Court used the Fourteenth
Amendment to slip through the precise wording of the First Amendment.
I have never seen a single case or attempt by Congress to establish any
religion that all Americans must worship. Never. Nor have I ever seen any
Congress attempt to establish a mandated federal religion of any
denomination. Never.
I have seen the ACLU swoop down on local school districts and threaten
lawsuits if the children put on a Christmas display on school grounds or if
a school wants to lead a prayer before a football game.
How could anyone interpret second graders or the teachers at Mainstream
America Elementary School putting up a nativity display translate to
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"?
Congress has no presence at this elementary school displaying a Nativity
Scene attempting to make a law establishing any religion.
How could anyone interpret a school district which allows decades old
traditions like saying a prayer before a high school or college football
game as a violation of "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion"? The prohibiting of a basketball coach
sponsoring prayer at end of games and practices has absolutely nothing to
with Congress standing in the locker room where a prayer is said attempting
to make any law establishing any religion.
Post the Ten Commandments on classroom wall or even a court house and the
AU or ACLU will come with a vengeance threatening a lawsuit and if they
win, you will be forced to pay their legal costs - in some case hundreds of
thousands of dollars. How could anyone interpret the posting of the Ten
Commandments in any class room or court house as a violation of "Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"? Congress has no
presence at any school room or court house attempting to make a law
establishing any religion.
Have you ever seen Congress attempt to pass a law establishing a religion
based upon kids at a local elementary school displaying the Nativity or
jocks in the locker room saying a prayer? The whole argument is bull. In
order for there to be a violation of "church and state" relating to the
First Amendment, the House of Representatives would have to introduce
legislation which would establish a religion for the united States of
America. The Senate would introduce their version and if passed, a sitting
president would then have to sign such a bill into law establishing a
religion for these united States of America. Have you ever seen or heard
Congress ever attempt to do such a thing? Can one not see now how absurd
the Everson decision was and how destructive that decision has been for
this republic?
The list of examples is a million miles long and it all began in 1947.
Teddy Roosevelt said in 1909 that the next half century would determine
whether or not "[America] we will advance the cause of Christian
civilization or revert to the horrors of brutal paganism." It only took 38
short years for the communists to make their move to turn America into a
godless state backed up by a few black robbed gods sitting in a court room.
It's most unfortunate the gutless, counterfeit U.S. Senate back then didn't
move immediately to impeach every judge who voted for this upside down
ruling because it was bogus then and it is bogus now.
America is a Christian nation and it was founded on Christian doctrine. To
attempt to say otherwise is to deny the very existence of our Republic and
history. Let me ask liberals and politicians a question: What if 100,000
Catholics went to Israel and demanded that Israel become a Catholic
country? . . .
[end of excerpt]
********************************************************************
**********
***
*****************************************************************
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
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
