A Plea to Fundamentalist Christians

Sociology > Education > A Plea to Fundamentalist Christians

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 1

Topic:	Sociology > Education
User:	""
Date:	15 Jan 2006 11:48:22 AM
Object:	A Plea to Fundamentalist Christians

A Plea to Fundamentalist Christians
http://www.sierratimes.com/06/01/13/71_49_18_22_30422.htm
SierraTimes.com - USA
[excerpt]
It seems apparent that our founding fathers believed in a Supreme Being
that touches all phases of human life. And accordingly, the founding
document they gave America in 1787 reflects that belief.
The U.S. Constitution states that the freedom we enjoy in America -- life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -- is a God given, not a man given,
right. But why then, if God is in all phases of human life, did our
founding fathers advocate separation of church and state?
It sounds like a contradiction in ideas. It isn’t, What it is, is two
distinctly different and incompatible concepts; one being spiritual, the
other secular. In philosophical terms, one is “of” this world, the other is
“in” this world. Or simply put, oil and water don’t mix.
This being the case, religious beliefs and political agendas are often
incompatible and therefore can be a cause for dissension, distrust, and
even violence. Needless to say, the world’s long history of human tragedy
and misery gives ample testament to the truth of that assertion. And our
founders knew this.
Making the separation of church and state a necessary ingredient, then,
reflects the framers’ desire to accommodate this disparity.
**************************************************************
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: "fred"
Title: Re: A Plea to Fundamentalist Christians	15 Jan 2006 12:24:44 PM

wrote:

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity,
religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that
man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these
great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of
men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man,
ought to respect and to cherish them." --George Washington's Farewell
Address 1796
"One of the amendments to the Constitution... expressly declares that
'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,' thereby guarding in the same sentence and
under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the
press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary
which covers the others." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky
Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:382

"in" this world. Or simply put, oil and water don't mix.

This being the case, religious beliefs and political agendas are often
incompatible and therefore can be a cause for dissension, distrust, and
even violence. Needless to say, the world's long history of human tragedy
and misery gives ample testament to the truth of that assertion. And our
founders knew this.

Making the separation of church and state a necessary ingredient, then,
reflects the framers' desire to accommodate this disparity.

**************************************************************
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 =B7 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 =

page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisne=

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: "Bill"
Title: Re: A Plea to Fundamentalist Christians	15 Jan 2006 01:38:12 PM

"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137349484.611703.155080@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:

Which supreme being? There are thousands of different beliefs including
atheism.
They did NOT ALL believe in any common religion.

The U.S. Constitution states that the freedom we enjoy in America -- life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -- is a God given, not a man given,
right. But why then, if God is in all phases of human life, did our
founding fathers advocate separation of church and state?

Because ther are literally thousands of different god beliefs and hundreds
of different
religions. there is no way that the government can support any particular
religion
without causing chaos an y possibley even rebellions.
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity,
religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that
man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these
great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of
men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man,
ought to respect and to cherish them." --George Washington's Farewell
Address 1796
"One of the amendments to the Constitution... expressly declares that
'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,' thereby guarding in the same sentence and
under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the
press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary
which covers the others." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky
Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:382

It sounds like a contradiction in ideas. It isn't, What it is, is two
distinctly different and incompatible concepts; one being spiritual, the
other secular. In philosophical terms, one is "of" this world, the other
is
"in" this world. Or simply put, oil and water don't mix.

This being the case, religious beliefs and political agendas are often
incompatible and therefore can be a cause for dissension, distrust, and
even violence. Needless to say, the world's long history of human tragedy
and misery gives ample testament to the truth of that assertion. And our
founders knew this.

Making the separation of church and state a necessary ingredient, then,
reflects the framers' desire to accommodate this disparity.

**************************************************************
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: "fred"
Title: Re: A Plea to Fundamentalist Christians	15 Jan 2006 06:51:54 PM

Bill wrote:

"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137349484.611703.155080@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:

Which supreme being? There are thousands of different beliefs including
atheism.
They did NOT ALL believe in any common religion.

Why don't you read what you replied to? Given more than 92% of the
American Founding Fathers were Christian, the Supreme Being in question
is the Judeo-Christian God. You're side-stepping the issue by
including global beliefs.

Again, you're trying to confuse the issue. I'm sure that you can find
communities in America that are 100% Christian, for example. In such
cases, there is nothing unconstitutional if these Christian communities
democratically decide to finance Bible classes in local public schools
which contain 100% Christian students.
But consideration would need to be given to local taxpayers, including
Christians, who choose not to participate financially in such things.

<snipped for brevity>
.

User: ""
Title: Re: A Plea to Fundamentalist Christians	15 Jan 2006 02:06:56 PM

On 15 Jan 2006 10:24:44 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:

Because you don't seem to know the difference between a
"Juedo-Christian THEOLOGY" and a "Judeo-Christian
PHILOSOPHY"

I don't read a single thing about Judeo-Christian dogma
there, Freddie.

"One of the amendments to the Constitution... expressly declares that
'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,' thereby guarding in the same sentence and
under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the
press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary
which covers the others." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky
Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:382

And exactly what legal standing in Constitutional law
does a "1798 DRAFT of a RESOLUTION" have, Freddie?
.

User: "cpt banjo"
Title: Re: A Plea to Fundamentalist Christians	15 Jan 2006 11:57:11 AM

wrote:

A Plea to Fundamentalist Christians
http://www.sierratimes.com/06/01/13/71_49_18_22_30422.htm
SierraTimes.com - USA
[excerpt]

The U.S. Constitution states that the freedom we enjoy in America -- life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -- is a God given, not a man given,
right. But why then, if God is in all phases of human life, did our
founding fathers advocate separation of church and state?

I continue to be amazed at the folks who can't tell the difference
between the Constitution, which is the law, and the Declaration of
Independence, which isn't.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: A Plea to Fundamentalist Christians	15 Jan 2006 02:03:29 PM

On 15 Jan 2006 09:57:11 -0800, "cpt banjo"
<cptbanjo@aol.com> wrote:

buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:

I continue to be amazed at the folks who can't tell the difference
between the Constitution, which is the law, and the Declaration of
Independence, which isn't.

The declaration enumerated all those things which
caused us to set up a constitution
Perhaps you not understanding---is the problem
rightwing conservatives keep arguing (as strict
constructionists who regard "writings, speeches, etc as
gravitous as law) that what the Founders "meant" or
"thought", it would follow that what those who took up
arms thought/wrote as to WHY they did would serve as
being just as relevant.
That was embodied in the Declaration
Further, the deliberate use of the Lazarus poem on the
Statute of Liberty to encourgage people of ALL walks of
life to come here counters the claim of conservatives
that we're "losing America".
.

User: ""
Title: Re: A Plea to Fundamentalist Christians	16 Jan 2006 06:47:13 AM

wrote:

* Declaration of Independence: Its Purpose
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/doipurp.htm
* Jefferson's Declaration of Independence did not use the word
"Creator"
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/doitj.htm
* The United States Supreme Court and the Declaration of Independence
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/doisussc.htm
* An analysis of the Declaration of Independence
o Declaration of Independence: Preamble
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/doi-pream.htm
o Declaration of Independence is not law
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/doinotlaw.htm
o The Declaration of Independence Didn't Create Independence,
Didn't "Found" Anything, Didn't Separate Anything: It Was an Explanation
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/doiexplain.htm
"Founding" Documents and Religion (1776-1791)
* Founding Documents and Religion, DOI, AOC, Constitution, BORs
o A Big Fuss Over Nothing: An analysis of real and imagined
references to God, Christianity and Religion and lack thereof in obvious
places in five documents from the founding period of our history: the
Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, Northwest
Ordinance, Federalist Papers, Constitution of the United States
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/bigfuss.htm
***************************************************************************
OBJECTIONS ADMITTING THE PRINCIPLE INVOLVED, BUT URGED AGAINST
THE EXPEDIENCY OF THE MOVEMENT.
Objection 1. The Constitution already acknowledges God.
The objector says, substantially: "The proposed amendment is just
and proper, but it is unnecessary. God and Christianity are now
acknowledged in the fundamental law of the nation." And what is the proof
of such acknowledgment? The word oath, a passing reference to the Christian
Sabbath in the clause, "Sundays excepted," making th'~ Sabbath a dies non
in the reckoning of days during which the Resident may retain a bill for
approval, the mention of the common law, and the formula of date. These are
all. They hardly require notice. It may be said in brief, however, that the
mention of the Sabbath is simply an incidental allusion, an evidence,
indeed, that there was a Sabbath known; but it is no acknowledgment of the
obligation of the Sabbath. The dating again is no part of the instrument.
It merely marks the time. And more than all else, the name of God was
excluded from the form of the President's oath, incorporated in the
Constitution. Can these features of the Constitution, with a mention of the
common law, be regarded as an adequate acknowledgment of the nation's
subjection to God and his government? It is now almost universally admitted
that they are not religious acknowledgments at all. So completely devoid is
our Constitution of any religious character that multitudes of both
infidels and Christians agree in stating that it is no more Christian than
Mohammedan. As Ex-President Woolsey declared in his paper read before the
Evangelical Alliance, it needs no change to adapt it to a Mohammedan
nation. Admiring, as we do, the many ex eN lencies of our Constitution, we
are constrained to admit this sad defect. If it is still claimed that an
acknowledgment of God and Chris-
3
tianity is in the Constitution, it must also be admitted that such an
acknowledgment, now dimly there at best, should be made so clear
and explicit that no room may be left for doubt. What is there rightfully
ought to be there indisputably.*
_______________________
* For anothcer remark In this connectian, see last page
Since the foregoing pages were stereoyped the First Objection has
been brought to our notice in another form by an eminent citizen of New
England. He says "The Declaration of Independence is really the ,full
Preamble of the Constitution. It sets forth sentiments and principles; the
Constitution follows it with rules and regulations. That document, at the
outset, declares it to be a self-evident truth that all men are created
equal and endouved by their Creator with all their rights; and closes with
an appeal 'to the Supreme Judge of the World.'"
We are fully sensible of the value of these expressions in the
Declaration. They prove that the nation then owned her allegiance to God.
They vindicate her right, now strenuously denied, to acknoxvledge God in
public documents. They show that what we propose is consistent with the
spirit and exantple of our fathers, in the noblest passages of our history.
But we must clearly distinguish betwcen these two documents. The
Declaration is not part of the written Constitution. Its value is
historical rather than legal. It is a deed of the nation which has passed
into history; the Constitution, as a law, is an ever-present act of the
nation's will.. The argument which is drawn from the silence of the
Constitution concerning God and Religiou against all Christian features of
our government as contrary to " our political covenant," nut covered by the
bond, cannot be adequately met by an appeal in the Declaration of t776.
SOURCE: The Christian Statesman Tracts No. 6, ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS
to the RELIGIOUS AMENDMENT of the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.
BY THE REV. D. M'ALLISTER. (1874}
**************************************************************
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: "Bob LeChevalier"
Title: Re: A Plea to Fundamentalist Christians	15 Jan 2006 10:40:25 PM

wrote:

On 15 Jan 2006 09:57:11 -0800, "cpt banjo"
<cptbanjo@aol.com> wrote:

buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:

I continue to be amazed at the folks who can't tell the difference
between the Constitution, which is the law, and the Declaration of
Independence, which isn't.

The declaration enumerated all those things which
caused us to set up a constitution

The Constitution was written when the government set up to implement
the declaration proved to be a failure. It was in that sense a
counter-revolution (and with only a couple of exceptions, the DofI
signers were NOT part of the Constitutional Convention). Furthermore,
it was a pragmatist's document hammered out with several known
compromises and probably a few that were not recorded.
The Constitution stands alone, and in no way depends on any other
document.
lojbab
.

User: "fred"
Title: Re: A Plea to Fundamentalist Christians	15 Jan 2006 11:23:01 PM

Bob LeChevalier wrote:

Knickkkers@WhattaIdiot.com wrote:

On 15 Jan 2006 09:57:11 -0800, "cpt banjo"
<cptbanjo@aol.com> wrote:

buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:

I continue to be amazed at the folks who can't tell the difference
between the Constitution, which is the law, and the Declaration of
Independence, which isn't.

The declaration enumerated all those things which
caused us to set up a constitution

The Constitution was written when the government set up to implement
the declaration proved to be a failure. It was in that sense a
counter-revolution (and with only a couple of exceptions, the DofI
signers were NOT part of the Constitutional Convention). Furthermore,
it was a pragmatist's document hammered out with several known
compromises and probably a few that were not recorded.

The Constitution stands alone, and in no way depends on any other
document.

Indeed, the Everson Justices had to rely on a private letter,
particularly a part of Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist
Association which they took out of context, to help justify their
twisted interpretation of the establishment clause:
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at
least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a
church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all
religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor
influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his
will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No
person can be punished for entertain- [330 U.S. 1, 16] ing or
professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or
non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to
support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be
called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion.
Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly,
participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and
vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment
of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between
Church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page
164." --Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing TP. 1947.

lojbab

User: "Bob LeChevalier"
Title: Re: A Plea to Fundamentalist Christians	17 Jan 2006 03:18:02 AM

"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

Bob LeChevalier wrote:

The Constitution stands alone, and in no way depends on any other
document.

False. The Everson decision has extensive legal reasoning leading up
to the definition of the Establishment Clause. The Jefferson quote is
not part of the reasoning or justification at all. It is a sound bite
quote, AFTER the lengthy definition, giving a brief summary of what
that lengthy definition means in everyday terms.
As can be seen the text you quote.

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at
least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a
church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all
religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor
influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his
will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No
person can be punished for entertain- [330 U.S. 1, 16] ing or
professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or
non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to
support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be
called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion.
Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly,
participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and
vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment
of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between
Church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page
164." --Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing TP. 1947.

lojbab
.

User: "fred"
Title: Re: A Plea to Fundamentalist Christians	17 Jan 2006 03:01:27 PM

Bob LeChevalier wrote:

"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

Bob LeChevalier wrote:

The Constitution stands alone, and in no way depends on any other
document.

Boloney!
You overlook/ignore that Justice Jackson had the guts to note the
sideline agenda of absolute church-state separation being pushed by his
colleagues:
"The Court's opinion marshals every argument in favor of state aid and
puts the case in its most favorable light, but much of its reasoning
confirms my conclusions that there are no good grounds upon which to
support the present legislation. In fact, the undertones of the
opinion, advocating complete and uncompromising separation of Church
from State, seem utterly discordant with its conclusion yielding
support to their commingling in educational matters. The case which
irresistibly comes to mind as the most fitting precedent is that of
Julia who, according to Byron's reports, 'whispering 'I will ne'er
consent,'- consented.'" --Justice Jackson, Everson v. Board of
Education of Ewing TP, 1947.
You also ignored that the Court borrowed from its scandalous
interpretation of the 14th Amendment from the Cantwell opinion to help
justify its twisted interpretation of the establishment clause:
"The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the
legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such
laws." --Cantwell v. State of Connecticut 1940.
The unconstitutional sleight-of-hand of the above statement is that the
14th Amendment did not magically appear in the Constitution overnight
for the States to start bowing down to; the States are the ones who
wrote the 14th Amendment! But the corrupt Cantwell justices not only
twisted the 14th Amendment into an admission of incompentency, thus
totally ignoring the 5th Amendment protections of the people not to be
witnesses against themselves, but the Justices also accepted the 14th
Amendment as an informal surrendering of the 10th Amendment sovereign
powers of the States. Indeed, the Justices didn't have the guts to
mention the 10th Amendment protected powers of the States in the
Cantwell opinion.
Fortunately, Justice Reed wrote a rare note about the 10th Amendment in
the Opelika opinion, a note which unifies the checks and balances
between the 1st, 10th and 14th Amendments:
"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." --Justice Reed, Jones v. City of
Opelika 1942
But instead of balancing the 10th protected sovereign powers of the
States with 14th protected personal federal rights as they should,
corrupt, secular-minded Justices are now using the 14th as an excuse to
unconstitutionally force the 1st A's prohibitions of specific powers on
Congress onto the States. 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, regardless if atheists,
separationists, secular judges and the liberal media are misleading the
people to think that such things are unconstitutional.
"We the People are the rightful master of both congress and the courts
- not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who
pervert the Constitution." --Abraham Lincoln, Political Debates Between
Lincoln and Douglas. 1897
"One single object... [will merit] the endless gratitude of society:
that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation." --Thomas
Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:113

As can be seen the text you quote.

lojbab

User: "Bob LeChevalier"
Title: Re: A Plea to Fundamentalist Christians	18 Jan 2006 03:40:17 AM

"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

Bob LeChevalier wrote:

Boloney!

You can't even spell the word. If you disagree, please explain what
all that verbiage in the decision prior to the piece you quoted is -
you know all that text studded with references to precedent cases, to
Madison and his Remonstrance, etc.

You overlook/ignore that Justice Jackson had the guts to note the
sideline agenda of absolute church-state separation being pushed by his
colleagues:

"The Court's opinion marshals every argument in favor of state aid and
puts the case in its most favorable light, but much of its reasoning
confirms my conclusions that there are no good grounds upon which to
support the present legislation. In fact, the undertones of the
opinion, advocating complete and uncompromising separation of Church
from State, seem utterly discordant with its conclusion yielding
support to their commingling in educational matters. The case which
irresistibly comes to mind as the most fitting precedent is that of
Julia who, according to Byron's reports, 'whispering 'I will ne'er
consent,'- consented.'" --Justice Jackson, Everson v. Board of
Education of Ewing TP, 1947.

"Sideline agenda"? How obtuse!
The "complete and uncompromising separation of Church and State" was
the *heart* of the decision, not a "sideline agenda". Jackson is not
criticizing that assertion of separation as a "sideline agenda". He
is criticizing the fact that having articulated that principle, that
the majority was NOT insisting on "complete and uncompromising
separation of Church and State", because of course the majority ruling
was NOT one of complete and uncompromising separation - it let the
aid-to-religion activities of the Board of Education stand.
It was Jackson's position that the uncompromising separation should
indeed be *uncompromising*.
You continue to ignore that Jackson was in favor of a STRONGER
separation than was approved by the majority opinion. He did not
dissent from the definition of the Establishment Clause or from its
applicability, but from the fact that the court had chosen to NOT
consider the state action to be a violation of that clause as defined.
Thus he was making a case for a STRONGER wall of separation than was
ultimately approved.
If Jackson's opinion had prevailed, I suspect that many of the
succeeding controversial cases would never have been heard by the
courts, and the wall of separation would be stronger than it is. But
his opinion did NOT prevail, and we are stuck with the more
compromising ruling of the majority. But of course that compromising
ruling still has the definition of the establishment clause that you
quote and then ignore, as well as the legal reasoning that led to it,
which you also ignore.

You also ignored that the Court borrowed from its scandalous
interpretation of the 14th Amendment from the Cantwell opinion to help
justify its twisted interpretation of the establishment clause:

Why yes, the Supreme Court does respect its precedents. That is one
of their guiding principles, and you cannot in any case argue that the
Cantwell opinion is a quote from Jefferson's Danbury letter - so the
decision is NOT relying on the latter.
On the other hand, Cantwell was NOT cited in the majority opinion, but
rather in Jackson's dissenting opinion. So Cantwell was NOT used to
justify the majority opinion.
The key relevant legal precedents, which you ignore while focusing on
the legally irrelevant quote from Jefferson and the minority cite of
Cantwell, were:
Murdock v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 , 63 S.Ct. 870,
872, 146 A.L.R. 81
"the First Amendment, as made applicable to the states by the
Fourteenth"
Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page 164; Watson v.
Jones, 13 Wall. 679; Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333, 342 , 10 S.Ct.
299, 300.
(on the nature of the protection against governmental intrusion upon
religious liberty)
and the court's approval of a South Carolina appeal decision
Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679, 730
'The structure of our government has, for the preservation of civil
liberty, rescued the temporal institutions from religious
interference. On the other hand, it has secured religious liberty from
the invasions of the civil authority.'
There were also a slew of cases cited on the question of due process,
apart from the question of the 1st amendment's applicability.
You have ignored all this, some 15 paragraphs of text prior to the one
you quoted.
Your issue would appear to be with the Murdock decision, but it of
course does not rely on a quote from Jefferson's Danburty letter. And
it is as much the law of the land as the Cantwell decision and the
Everson decision itself, despite your endlessly repetitive rantings to
the contrary.

"The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the
legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such
laws." --Cantwell v. State of Connecticut 1940.

The unconstitutional sleight-of-hand of the above statement

By virtue of being part of the ruling in a USSC decision, the above is
QUITE constitutional.

is that the
14th Amendment did not magically appear in the Constitution overnight
for the States to start bowing down to; the States are the ones who
wrote the 14th Amendment!

No. A group of radical Congressmen did. And in the tenor of the
post-Civil-War times, they were able to ram that proposal through the
Congress and to use the sentiments of the victorious side in the civil
war to carry the amendment through the necessary 3/4 of the states.

But the corrupt Cantwell justices not only
twisted the 14th Amendment into an admission of incompentency, thus
totally ignoring the 5th Amendment protections of the people not to be
witnesses against themselves, but the Justices also accepted the 14th
Amendment as an informal surrendering of the 10th Amendment sovereign
powers of the States. Indeed, the Justices didn't have the guts to
mention the 10th Amendment protected powers of the States in the
Cantwell opinion.

[yawn]
That you disagree with the USSC is utterly immaterial, since you are
incompetent to judge, not having been nominated nor confirmed by the
Senate (and I doubt that you are likely to be). Their decision is the
law of the land, despite your disapproval, and basing the Everson
decision on the precedent of Murdock, Reynolds, etc. (or even on
Cantwell which they didn't) is of course the antithesis of basing it
on a quote from Jefferson.

Fortunately, Justice Reed wrote a rare note about the 10th Amendment in
the Opelika opinion, a note which unifies the checks and balances
between the 1st, 10th and 14th Amendments:

"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." --Justice Reed, Jones v. City of
Opelika 1942

Opelika was also cited in the dissent by Jackson as justification for
the claim that
"This Court has gone a long way, if not an unreasonable way, to hold
that public business of such paramount importance as maintenance of
public order, protection of the privacy of the home, and taxation may
not be pursued by a state in a way that even indirectly will interfere
with religious proselyting."
But your quote is utterly irrelevant to the majority opinion in
Everson, of which you continual display a lack of understanding

But instead of balancing the 10th protected sovereign powers of the
States with 14th protected personal federal rights as they should,
corrupt, secular-minded Justices are now using the 14th as an excuse to
unconstitutionally force the 1st A's prohibitions of specific powers on
Congress onto the States.

The court disagrees, and by the powers vested in them by the
Constitution, they are "right" and you are "wrong".

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, regardless if atheists,
separationists, secular judges and the liberal media are misleading the
people to think that such things are unconstitutional.

I don't think that there has been a ruling on that issue. All of the
rulings thus far have been on mandatory parts of the curriculum.
There have been discussions in the education newsgroups to the effects
that discussing the pros and cons of the matter might be legitimate in
an elective philosophy class. But creationism and intelligent design
are not science, and deserve no consideration in a science class.

"We the People are the rightful master of both congress and the courts
- not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who
pervert the Constitution." --Abraham Lincoln, Political Debates Between
Lincoln and Douglas. 1897

"One single object... [will merit] the endless gratitude of society:
that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation." --Thomas
Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:113

After falsely claiming that a Jefferson quote was the justification
for the Everson decision, another Jefferson quote is not a suitable
answer. And Lincoln is considered by historians to have violated the
constitution, albeit to save the constitution. He was of course
commenting on Dred Scott, which however reprehensible it was as a
ruling, remained the law of the land until the 13th and 14th
amendments voided it.
lojbab
.

User: ""
Title: Re: A Plea to Fundamentalist Christians	17 Jan 2006 08:29:12 AM

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 23:40:25 -0500, Bob LeChevalier
<lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:

Knickkkers@WhattaIdiot.com wrote:

On 15 Jan 2006 09:57:11 -0800, "cpt banjo"
<cptbanjo@aol.com> wrote:

buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:

I continue to be amazed at the folks who can't tell the difference
between the Constitution, which is the law, and the Declaration of
Independence, which isn't.

The declaration enumerated all those things which
caused us to set up a constitution

The Constitution was written when the government set up to implement
the declaration proved to be a failure. It was in that sense a
counter-revolution (and with only a couple of exceptions, the DofI
signers were NOT part of the Constitutional Convention). Furthermore,
it was a pragmatist's document hammered out with several known
compromises and probably a few that were not recorded.

The Constitution stands alone, and in no way depends on any other
document.

The issue is that a "declaration" predicated on certain
principles, established WHY we rebelled against
government
The Constitution eventually established the "rule of
law" based on most of those principles.
The debate leading up to the ratification of the
constitution included input from various interests.
Yes, the constitiution "stands alone" and requires NO
other document to legtimize it.
.

User: "Bob LeChevalier"
Title: Re: A Plea to Fundamentalist Christians	17 Jan 2006 12:27:08 PM

wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 23:40:25 -0500, Bob LeChevalier
<lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:

The Constitution was written when the government set up to implement
the declaration proved to be a failure. It was in that sense a
counter-revolution (and with only a couple of exceptions, the DofI
signers were NOT part of the Constitutional Convention). Furthermore,
it was a pragmatist's document hammered out with several known
compromises and probably a few that were not recorded.

The Constitution stands alone, and in no way depends on any other
document.

The issue is that a "declaration" predicated on certain
principles, established WHY we rebelled against
government

It established why we rebelled against a *particular* government. 95%
of the DofI is a catalog of specific wrongs done to the American
people by the King and his government.

The Constitution eventually established the "rule of
law" based on most of those principles.

No. The state constitutions established the "rule of law" based on
most of those principles. The Articles of Confederation arguably was
also was written based on those principles, though in fact there is
nothing in the DofI other than the fact that it was a joint
declaration that suggested that there needed to be any sort of
Confederation.
The Articles of Confederation failed. A group of Americans called for
a committee to propose amendments to the AofC. The committee then
violated its charter and proposed dumping the AofC completely and
having a Constitution based on entirely different principles, most
notably that the Constitution was supreme over state constitutions,
and that the functions of the Federal government would be exercised
without unanimous consent by the states. Thus the states surrendered
their sovereignty to the Federal government.
None of the latter paragraph was called for or implied by the DofI.
based on the DofI, the Articles were more than sufficient.
lojbab
.

User: "cpt banjo"
Title: Re: A Plea to Fundamentalist Christians	15 Jan 2006 03:56:32 PM

wrote:

On 15 Jan 2006 09:57:11 -0800, "cpt banjo"
<cptbanjo@aol.com> wrote:

I continue to be amazed at the folks who can't tell the difference
between the Constitution, which is the law, and the Declaration of
Independence, which isn't.

The declaration enumerated all those things which
caused us to set up a constitution

Not really. It enumerated the causes for declaring independence, after
which we set up the Articles of Confederation, which didn't work.
That's why we set up the Constitution -- to correct the errors made the
first time around.
And I think you misunderstood the reason for my post. While agreeing
for the most part with the sentiments expressed in the original post to
this thread, I wanted to point out the error in claiming that it's the
Constitution that says that all rights are derived from God, as if the
Constitution (as the supreme law of the land) somehow embodies a
theistic outlook that has some kind of legal significance. The fact of
the matter is that the Constitution says no such thing, but (with the
help of the First Amendment) leaves to each citizen the right to
determine his own religious beliefs with government keeping its
intrusive nose out of things, neither hindering private individuals'
beliefs nor promoting its own religious agenda.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: A Plea to Fundamentalist Christians	15 Jan 2006 05:25:23 PM

On 15 Jan 2006 13:56:32 -0800, "cpt banjo"
<cptbanjo@aol.com> wrote:

Knickkkers@WhattaIdiot.com wrote:

On 15 Jan 2006 09:57:11 -0800, "cpt banjo"
<cptbanjo@aol.com> wrote:

I continue to be amazed at the folks who can't tell the difference
between the Constitution, which is the law, and the Declaration of
Independence, which isn't.

The declaration enumerated all those things which
caused us to set up a constitution

Not really. It enumerated the causes for declaring independence,

Had those "grievances" been addressed in the normal way
that ALL British citizens enjoyed, the revolution would
never have occurred.
We "revolted" because we did not enjoy the same
"rights" as all other British Citizens.
If all those "grievances" would have been moot, what in
***** would we have "declared" as justification?
.

User: "duke"
Title: Re: A Plea to Fundamentalist Christians	15 Jan 2006 04:41:55 PM

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 12:48:22 -0500,

wrote:

That's easy. England is a Church-state. And our forefathers said no to a
church-state, but they didn't ban free exercise of religion thereof.
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.
In fact, we have legal redress against those that try to interfere in my free
exercise of religion.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.

User: "erikc"
Title: Re: A Plea to Fundamentalist Christians	15 Jan 2006 05:20:06 PM

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 16:41:55 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 12:48:22 -0500,

wrote:

That's easy. England is a Church-state. And our forefathers said no to a
church-state, but they didn't ban free exercise of religion thereof.

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.

In fact, we have legal redress against those that try to interfere in my free
exercise of religion.

Just as I have legal redress against you and yours when you interfere with my
non-religion.
Erikc (alt.atheist #002) | "An Fhirinne in aghaidh an tSaoil."
BAAWA Knight (retired) | "The Truth against the World."
.

User: "David Jensen"
Title: Re: A Plea to Fundamentalist Christians	15 Jan 2006 04:45:53 PM

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 16:41:55 -0600, in alt.atheism
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
<qmjls1pn73mkrtaajmk9tjegrnus83dcf2@4ax.com>:

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 12:48:22 -0500,

wrote:

That's easy. England is a Church-state. And our forefathers said no to a
church-state, but they didn't ban free exercise of religion thereof.

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.

In fact, we have legal redress against those that try to interfere in my free
exercise of religion.

Including jerks who lie about their religion and try to get public
school teachers to teach religious doctrines in science class.
.

User: "Gray Shockley"
Title: Re: A Plea to Fundamentalist Christians	19 Jan 2006 12:08:54 AM

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 16:45:53 -0600, David Jensen wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 16:41:55 -0600, in alt.atheism
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
<qmjls1pn73mkrtaajmk9tjegrnus83dcf2@4ax.com>:

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 12:48:22 -0500,

wrote:

That's easy. England is a Church-state. And our forefathers said no to a
church-state, but they didn't ban free exercise of religion thereof.

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.

In fact, we have legal redress against those that try to interfere in my
free
exercise of religion.

Including jerks who lie about their religion and try to get public
school teachers to teach religious doctrines in science class.

From what I've heard in the past few years, there are quite a few
of the younger teachers that are Wiccans.
However, PulletHeadsDuke&Fred would be excellent choices for the
mandatory lesson on how to crucify those who think they are god.
Gray Shockley
------------------
... a government committed to a policy of
improving the nation by improving the condition
of some of the individuals will eventually run
into trouble in attempting to distinguish between
a national good and a chocolate sundae.
- E. B. White
.

User: ""
Title: Re: A Plea to Fundamentalist Christians	16 Jan 2006 07:07:22 AM

duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:

:|That's easy. England is a Church-state. And our forefathers said no to a
:|church-state, but they didn't ban free exercise of religion thereof.
:|
:|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.
:|
:|In fact, we have legal redress against those that try to interfere in my free
:|exercise of religion.
:|
:|duke

Free exercise or religion HAS NEVER BEEN CARTE BLANC.
There have always been some restrictions placed on it. Colonel Cartes,
original state constitutions and the US Constitution places restrictions on
same
The only absolute with regards to free exercise is in the realm of freedom
of conscience, in other words you have an absolute right to believe
anything you want, however, you have never had a absolute right to take
actions on those beliefs.
**************************************************************
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
****************************************************************
.

Page 1 of 1

Post reply

Re: 9th Circuit: Thou shalt not discriminate against Christians
Missing the Mark with Religion, Part 1: Modern Liberalism - "...traditional Christians and Jews do not have the right to worship as they please..."
The left's war on American Christians.
If This is Atheism, I'll Take My Chances With the Christians
Death by Secular Counterfeit-christians
Homosexual Activist Sent Death Wish Emails to Christians
Homosexual Senator Sent Death Wish to Christians
Three More Children Beheaded by Christians

Re: 77% of Christians Do Not Believe It's The One True Faith
Pray God to now help us Christians to evangelize.
Re: A bogus Madison quote used by Christians & Bush
Looking for instances of religious persecution in schools by conservative christians
Re: STUPID CHRISTIANS
Brokaw to Demonize American Christians
Flight 93 Memorial: A Slap at Christians in America

NEWER

pg.544 pg.412 pg.311 pg.234 pg.175 pg.130 pg.96 pg.70 pg.50 pg.35 pg.24 pg.16 pg.10 pg.6 pg.3 pg.1

OLDER