Sociology > Education > AMERICANS UNITED REPORT SAYS SUPREME COURT NOMINEE IS THREAT TO CHURCH-STATE SEPARATION
| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
16 Dec 2005 02:51:25 PM |
| Object: |
AMERICANS UNITED REPORT SAYS SUPREME COURT NOMINEE IS THREAT TO CHURCH-STATE SEPARATION |
For Immediate Release
December 16, 2005
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
Contact: Joe Conn or Rob Boston
http://www.au.org/site/R?i=gkZl9Vy89krmej3lXW4D6g..
AMERICANS UNITED REPORT SAYS SUPREME COURT NOMINEE IS THREAT TO
CHURCH-STATE SEPARATION
Religious Liberty Watchdog Group Calls On Senate To Reject Alito
Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. harbors a narrow view of religious liberty and
would likely join the Supreme Court's most conservative members in
dismantling the wall separating religion and government, says Americans
United for Separation of Church and State.
In a 22-page report <http://www.au.org/site/R?i=chAXt73wOfHzmErv-gCjzQ..
issued today, Americans United detailed Alito's troubling legal record on
church-state issues and called on the Senate to reject his nomination.
"Judge Alito appears to be exactly what the extreme right wants for the
nation's top court a judge eager to seriously weaken the wall separating
religion and government," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director
of Americans United. "As a federal appeals court judge, Alito has
consistently sided with powerful religious groups who have sought
government help in promoting their work.
"The senate should not confirm a hard-right nominee to replace Justice
Sandra Day O'Connor," Lynn continued.
Americans United's report reveals that as a judge on the 3rd U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals Alito consistently chipped away at the principle of
church-state separation, which has protected religious minorities from
oppression.
The report argues that replacing O'Connor with Alito "would fundamentally
alter First Amendment law and immediately put at risk many of the crucial
protections for religious minorities that the Supreme Court has recognized
and consistently enforced over the past sixty years."
"Throughout her career on the Court, Justice O'Connor has been keenly
attuned to the plight of religious minorities in society as a whole, and
most especially in the public schools," reads the report. "But Judge
Alito's focus has been elsewhere: on religious majorities' ability to
express their views through governmental instrumentalities, at
government-owned facilities, and in government-organized enterprises like
the public schools."
The report, available on AU's Web site, www.au.org
<http://www.au.org/site/R?i=yeAHpyUh3Cq0A8a_19YV1Q.. , examines Alito's
federal court opinions on religious liberty matters. The analysis of his
work shows that he has advanced a narrow view of religious liberty.
For example, in a 1996 case, Alito joined a dissenting opinion arguing that
it is constitutional for public schools to allow students to vote on having
prayer at graduation ceremonies. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against
officially sanctioned prayer at public school events, in part, because of
the coercive nature of such policies on religious minorities.
In another case, Child Evangelism Fellowship of New Jersey, Inc. v.
Stafford Township School District, Judge Alito ruled that a group dedicated
to evangelizing children in fundamentalist Christianity had a legal right
to compel a public elementary school to publicize its meetings by, among
other things, having teachers distribute to their classes the group's
evangelizing religious materials.
AU's report also highlights two cases where Alito sided with
government-sponsored holiday displays. AU asserts that Alito's actions in
those cases show him to be "far more amenable than either Justice O'Connor
or the Supreme Court to allowing government to use holiday displays to
communicate messages of religious favoritism."
Additionally, AU's report covers Alito's views on the free exercise of
religion, where he has a mixed record.
Lynn said AU's report would be submitted to the Senate.
"We strongly urge senators not to confirm Judge Alito," said Lynn. "His
legal record indicates he has a deeply flawed understanding of church-state
separation and serious disregard for the rights of religious minorities
against majoritarian influence."
Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington,
D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the
importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.
.
|
|
| User: "Unpleasant Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: AMERICANS UNITED REPORT SAYS SUPREME COURT NOMINEE IS THREAT TO CHURCH-STATE SEPARATION |
17 Dec 2005 02:45:30 PM |
|
|
<buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:86a6q1psbp6fb1afa7t1u4ol4nbpdh04tf@4ax.com...
For Immediate Release
December 16, 2005
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
Contact: Joe Conn or Rob Boston
http://www.au.org/site/R?i=gkZl9Vy89krmej3lXW4D6g..
AMERICANS UNITED REPORT SAYS SUPREME COURT NOMINEE IS THREAT TO
CHURCH-STATE SEPARATION
Let's hope so, since THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "CHURCH-STATE SEPARATION"
IN THE CONSTITUTION.
[Anti-]Religious Liberty Watchdog Group Calls On Senate To Reject Alito
Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. harbors a narrow [i.e., constitutional]
view of religious liberty and
would likely join the Supreme Court's most conservative [ i.e., faithful
to the constitution]
members in
dismantling the [fradulent, made up] wall separating religion and
government, says [anti-constitution]
Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: AMERICANS UNITED REPORT SAYS SUPREME COURT NOMINEE IS THREAT TO CHURCH-STATE SEPARATION |
20 Dec 2005 08:07:02 AM |
|
|
"Unpleasant Truth" <no.one@nowhere.com> wrote:
:|Let's hope so, since THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "CHURCH-STATE SEPARATION"
:|IN THE CONSTITUTION.
:|
And you are full of *****
Kindly explain the following. You won't, of course since you can't
LET US LOOK TO HISTORY:
"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 (1923) (Holmes, J.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) APRIL 14, 1800
THE GAZETTE
PHILADELPHIA
MONDAY EVENING, APRIL 14.
The condition of Church and State in America is such as to fill
every considerate mind with the most unhappy sensations. In spite of that
vanity and fastidiousness which led the Federal Convention, in founding
their government, to preclude any connection, it will appear in the end,
even by our own deplorable example, that a strict and indissoluble alliance
of religion to government has been ordained in the nature of things. Though
formally sundered by Constitution and laws; together they decline and
together (it would seem) they are likely to perish. (SOURCE OF INFORMATION:
THE GAZETTE OF THE UNITED STATES, APRIL 14, 1800 JAN 1, 1800 TO DEC 31,
1800 MFILM N.S. 10953 AP2.05
------------------------------------------------
(2) "The remaining part of the clause declares, that 'no religious test
shall ever be required, as a qualification to any office or public trust,
under the United States.' This clause is not introduced merely for the
purpose of satisfying the scruples of many respectable persons, who feel an
invincible repugnance to any test or affirmation. It had a higher object;
to cut off for ever every pretence of any alliance between church and
state in the national government. "
(COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES, by Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, Vol III, (1833) pg 705)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Madison's vetoes: Some of The First Official Meanings Assigned to The
Establishment Clause
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/madvetos.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) James Madison on Separation of Church and State
Direct references to separation to be found in the writings of James
Madison
----------------------------------------
OCTOBER 1, 1803
Notes for annual message, Oct. 17, 1803: alterations and additions, etc [1]
(3) after "assure"-are proposed "in due season, and under prudent
arrangements, important aids to our Treasury, as well as," an ample etc.
Quere: if the two or three succeeding paragraphs be not more
adapted to the separate and subsequent communication, if adopted as above
suggested.
(4) For the first sentence, may be substituted "In the territory between
the Mississippi and the Ohio another valuable acquisition has been made by
a treaty etc."[3.] As it stands, it does not sufficiently distinguish the
nature of the one acquisition from that of the other, and seems to imply
that the acquisition from France was wholly on the other side of the
Mississippi
May it not be as well to omit the detail of the stipulated
considerations, and particularly that of the Roman Catholic Pastor. The
jealousy of some may see in it a principle, not according with the
exemption of Religion from Civil power. In the Indian Treaty it will be
less noticed than in a President's speech.[4.]
FOOTNOTES:
[1.] For TJ's third annual message to Congress, Oct. 17, 1803, see Ford,
VIII, pp. 266-7)
[3.] TI's message announced the acquisition of territory by treaty from the
Kaskaskia Indians; see
Ford, VIII, pp. 269-70.
[4.] TJ accepted JM's suggestion to omit any discussion of Indian treaty
requirements to maintain a Roman Catholic priest, leaving the stipulations
in the treaty to "the competence of both
houses.... as soon as the senate shall have advised its ratification"; see
ibid.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, Washington, Oct.
1, 1803, Notes for annual message, Oct. 17, 1803: alterations and
additions, etc.[1.],
The Republic of Letters, the Correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and
James Madison, 1776-1826, Edited by James Morton Smith, Vol. II, 1790
-1804, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, London, (1995) pp 1297-98)
---------------------------------------------------
JUNE 3, 1811
"To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I
have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the
Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem
Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical
distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the
purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States,
I could not have other wise discharged my duty on the
occasion which presented itself"
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June
3, 1811. Letters And Other Writings of James Madison Fourth President Of
The United States In Four Volumes Published By the Order Of Congress,
Vol..II, J. B. Lippincott & Co., Philadelphia, (1865) pp 511-512)
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARCH 2, 1819
"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated
hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions
with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of
the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly
increased by the total separation of the church from the State."
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excert of a letter to Robert Walsh from James
Madison. MARCH 2, 1819 Letters and Other writings of James Madison, in
Four Volumes, Published by Order of Congress. VOL. III, J. B. Lippincott &
Co. Philadelphia, (1865), pp 121-126. James Madison on Religious Liberty,
Robert S.Alley, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N.Y. (1985) pp 82-83)
----------------------------------------------------------
1817-1833
"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and Gov't in the
Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by
Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents' already furnished
in their short history"
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excerpt from Madison's Detached Memoranda. This
document was discovered in 1946 among the papers of William Cabell Rives, a
biographer of Madison. Scholars date these observations in Madison's hand
sometime between 1817 and 1832. The entire document was published by
Elizabeth Fleet in the William and Mary Quarterly of October 1946.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
JULY 10, 1822
"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation
between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have
no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done,
in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity
the less they are mixed together"
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excerpt of letter to Edward Livingston from James
Madison, July 10, 1822. Letters and Other writings of James Madison, in
Four Volumes, Published by Order of Congress. VOL. III, J. B. Lippincott &
Co. Philadelphia, (1865), pp 273-276. James Madison on Religious Liberty,
Robert S.Alley, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N.Y. (1985) pp 82-83)
--------------------------------------------------------------
SEPTEMBER 1833
"I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to
trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil
authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on
unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other
or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded
against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way
whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting
each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others".
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Letter written by James Madison to Rev. Jasper
Adams, September, 1833.Writings of James Madison, edited by Gaillard Hunt,
[not sure what the volume number is but have enough information presented
here to locate the letter] microform Z1236.L53, pp 484-488. )
*********************************************************************
followed by
Some Thoughts on Religion and Law
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/bthot-lr.htm"
and the final in your face evidence:
Study Guide: Separation of Church and State - Indepth
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd0.htm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bull" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: AMERICANS UNITED REPORT SAYS SUPREME COURT NOMINEE IS THREAT TO CHURCH-STATE SEPARATION |
17 Dec 2005 02:53:27 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 13:45:30 -0700, "Unpleasant
Truth" <no.one@nowhere.com> wrote:
<buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:86a6q1psbp6fb1afa7t1u4ol4nbpdh04tf@4ax.com...
For Immediate Release
December 16, 2005
Americans United for Separation of Church and
State
Contact: Joe Conn or Rob Boston
http://www.au.org/site/R?i=gkZl9Vy89krmej3lXW4D6g..
AMERICANS UNITED REPORT SAYS SUPREME COURT
NOMINEE IS THREAT TO
CHURCH-STATE SEPARATION
Let's hope so, since THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS
"CHURCH-STATE SEPARATION"
IN THE CONSTITUTION.
[Anti-]Religious Liberty Watchdog Group Calls On
Senate To Reject Alito
Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. harbors a narrow
[i.e., constitutional]
view of religious liberty and
would likely join the Supreme Court's most
conservative [ i.e., faithful
to the constitution]
members in
dismantling the [fradulent, made up] wall
separating religion and
government, says [anti-constitution]
Americans United for Separation of Church and
State.
You must have just landed on this planet. Maybe
someday you'll be able to take a little time in
order to understand the constitution. Clearly you
know very little about it. Maybe you'll also
become able to communicate using established
alphabetic letters and a little basic grammar.
__
.
|
|
|
| User: "Unpleasant Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: AMERICANS UNITED REPORT SAYS SUPREME COURT NOMINEE IS THREAT TO CHURCH-STATE SEPARATION |
17 Dec 2005 07:31:52 PM |
|
|
"Bull" <BDurham@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:jhu8q1tjdncrv2cjmmatp741lajokq9151@4ax.com...
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 13:45:30 -0700, "Unpleasant
Truth" <no.one@nowhere.com> wrote:
<buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:86a6q1psbp6fb1afa7t1u4ol4nbpdh04tf@4ax.com...
For Immediate Release
December 16, 2005
Americans United for Separation of Church and
State
Contact: Joe Conn or Rob Boston
http://www.au.org/site/R?i=gkZl9Vy89krmej3lXW4D6g..
AMERICANS UNITED REPORT SAYS SUPREME COURT
NOMINEE IS THREAT TO
CHURCH-STATE SEPARATION
Let's hope so, since THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS
"CHURCH-STATE SEPARATION"
IN THE CONSTITUTION.
[Anti-]Religious Liberty Watchdog Group Calls On
Senate To Reject Alito
Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. harbors a narrow
[i.e., constitutional]
view of religious liberty and
would likely join the Supreme Court's most
conservative [ i.e., faithful
to the constitution]
members in
dismantling the [fradulent, made up] wall
separating religion and
government, says [anti-constitution]
Americans United for Separation of Church and
State.
You must have just landed on this planet. Maybe
someday you'll be able to take a little time in
order to understand the constitution. Clearly you
know very little about it. Maybe you'll also
become able to communicate using established
alphabetic letters and a little basic grammar.
OK, so I mistyped "fraudulent."
You, on the other hand, totally misunderstand the constitution.
Where does it say "separation of church and state?" The answer is
nowhere. All it says is "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion," i.e., there will be no national church, as
there was in England. All it applies to is "Congress," i.e., the federal
government, not the individual states. Even the atheists' favorite
president, Jefferson, recognized that when he wrote,
"In matters of religion, I have considered that its free
exercise is placed by the constitution independent of
the powers of the general government. I have therefore
undertaken, on no occasion, to prescribe the religious
exercises suited to it; but have left them, as the
constitution found them, under the direction and
discipline of state or church authorities acknowledged
by the several religious societies." - Thomas Jefferson,
Second Inaugural Address.
Beyond that, Jefferson routinely attended Sunday Christian worship
services - held in the Capitol Building. And he signed a bill
appropriating federal tax money for Catholic priests to Christianize the
Indians in the Northwest Territories. Explain all THAT in light of your
precious "separation of church and state." You can't - because there is
no such thing. It is a 20th century invention by constitutional heretics
(who, unfortunately, did not stop there).
And while you're at it, explain how three states managed to maintain
official state churches, paid for by tax money, into the second half of
the 19th century - during a period when the authors of the constitution
were alive and in a position to complain, had they considered it to be a
violation. But they did not - because it was not. One of those states,
by the way, was Massachusetts, the home state of our second and fifth
presidents. If they thought it was unconstitutional, they certainly had
standing to say so. But they didn't - because it wasn't.
So in just a few paragraphs, I have eclipsed all you "know" about the
constitution.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: AMERICANS UNITED REPORT SAYS SUPREME COURT NOMINEE IS THREAT TO CHURCH-STATE SEPARATION |
20 Dec 2005 10:06:23 AM |
|
|
"Unpleasant Truth" <no.one@nowhere.com> wrote:
:|
:|OK, so I mistyped "fraudulent."
:|
:|You, on the other hand, totally misunderstand the constitution.
:|
:|Where does it say "separation of church and state?" The answer is
:|nowhere. All it says is "Congress shall make no law respecting an
:|establishment of religion,"
LET US LOOK TO HISTORY:
"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 (1923) (Holmes, J.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) APRIL 14, 1800
THE GAZETTE
PHILADELPHIA
MONDAY EVENING, APRIL 14.
The condition of Church and State in America is such as to fill
every considerate mind with the most unhappy sensations. In spite of that
vanity and fastidiousness which led the Federal Convention, in founding
their government, to preclude any connection, it will appear in the end,
even by our own deplorable example, that a strict and indissoluble alliance
of religion to government has been ordained in the nature of things. Though
formally sundered by Constitution and laws; together they decline and
together (it would seem) they are likely to perish. (SOURCE OF INFORMATION:
THE GAZETTE OF THE UNITED STATES, APRIL 14, 1800 JAN 1, 1800 TO DEC 31,
1800 MFILM N.S. 10953 AP2.05
------------------------------------------------
(2) "The remaining part of the clause declares, that 'no religious test
shall ever be required, as a qualification to any office or public trust,
under the United States.' This clause is not introduced merely for the
purpose of satisfying the scruples of many respectable persons, who feel an
invincible repugnance to any test or affirmation. It had a higher object;
to cut off for ever every pretence of any alliance between church and
state in the national government. "
(COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES, by Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, Vol III, (1833) pg 705)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
James Madison says separation is in the Constitution:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/e1d3e562348cec49?hl=en&
Your shorter link is: http://makeashorterlink.com/?U2AE1275C
Study Guide: Separation of Church and State - Indepth
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd0.htm
The Establishment Clause
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/estclause.htm
:| i.e., there will be no national church, as
:|there was in England.
Where are those words in the Constituion? Now those words aren't.
But you might learn something with the following, I doubt it though.. Your
mind is closed
(1) how would any of the things Madison vetoed establish a national church?
They wouldn't so that measn there has to a braoder meaning to the
Establishment Clause:
* Madison's vetoes: Some of The First Official Meanings Assigned to The
Establishment Clause (1811)
http://candst.tripod.com/madvetos.htm
(2) James Madison And National Religion
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/madnational.htm
(3) The Constitution
Separated church (religion) and state (govt). This was accomplished in
the unamended constitution. directly with the religious test ban clause and
indirectly with that document as a whole
The establishment clauses reinforced that separation with its language
"make no law RESPECTING an establishment of religion.
Thus it is broader than just prohibiting a establishment of a state
religion by the federal government and later the state governments.
Something that would have been next to impossible to have accomplished
anyways:
BACKGROUND COMMENTARY
" In recent discussions of religious freedom and Church-State separation in
the United States attention has been so much centered constitutionally on
the Bill of Rights that the importance of this Provision in the original
Constitution as a bulwark of Church-State separation has been largely
overlooked. As a matter of fact it was and is important in preventing
religious tests for Federal office--a provision later extended to all the
states. It went far in thwarting any State Church in the United States; for
it would be almost impossible to establish such a Church, since no Church
has more than a fifth of the population. Congress as constituted with men
and women from all the denominations could never unite in selecting any one
body for this privilege. This has been so evident from the time of the
founding of the government that it is one reason why the First Amendment
must be interpreted more broadly than merely as preventing the state
establishment of religion which had already been made almost impossible."
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: CHURCH AND STATE IN THE UNITED STATES, VOLUME I,
Anton Phelps Stokes, D.D., LL.D, Harper & Brothers Publishers (1950) page
527)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some data on why a the establishment of a national church or religion in
the European style would have been next to impossible to achieve.
Breakdown of religion:
TABLE 2.3
Denominational Percentages by Region, 1776,Based on Number of Congregations
NEW ENGLAND (N = 1,039)
Congregationalist 63.0
Baptist 15.3
Episcopal 8.4
Presbyterian 5.5
Quaker 3.8
Other(1) 3.6
MIDDLE COLONIES (N = 1,285)
Presbyterian 24.6
Quaker 14. 1
Episcopal 12.9
German Reformed 9.8
Dutch Reformed 8.9
Lutheran 8.6
Baptist 7.6
Roman Catholic 4.2
Methodist 3.8
Moravian 1.8
Congregationalist 0.3
Other(1) 3.1
SOUTHERN COLONIES (N = 845)
Baptist 28.0
Episcopal 27.8
Presbyterian 24.9
Quaker 9.0
Lutheran 3,8
German Reformed 2.8
Methodist 1.4
Moravian 0.6
Congregationist 0.1
Roman Catholic 0.1
Other (1) 1.2
SOURCE: See Table 2.2.
NOTE: Only 3,169 of Jernegan's 3,228 congregations could be located
by colony.
(1) "Other" includes Separatist and Independent, Dunker, Mennonite,
Huguenot, Sandemanian, and Jewish.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE 2.5
Percentage Congregationalist by Colony, 1776
Colony % Congregationalist
Massachusetts 71.6
Connecticut 64.2
New Hampshire 63.2
Rhode Island 17.2
Georgia 4.3
New York 1.8
South Carolina 1.2
New ]ersey 0.4
Pennsylvania 0.0
Delaware 0.0
Maryland 0.0
Virginia 0.0
North Carolina 0.0
SOURCE: See Table 2.2.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source of information" THE CHURCHING OF AMERICA 1776-1990. Winners and
losers in our religions economy, by Roger Finke and Rodney Stark, Rutgers
University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey, (1994) Pages 25, 27, 29-30, 41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 6. THE CONDITION AND PUBLIC INFLUENCE OF THE CHURCHES DURING AND
IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE REVOLUTION
At the close of the colonial period there were something under three
million persons in the thirteen colonies, of whom about one-sixth were
slaves. Recent studies at the University of Chicago show somewhat over
three thousand religious organizations or congregations, counting each
church or chapel separately. These were divided about equally among New
England, the Middle Atlantic States, and the South. The total (3,005)
actually enumerated--about one thousand more than were estimated a decade
ago 49--were thus
distributed:
Congregationalists, mostly in New England ................... . 658
Presbyterians, largely in the middle colonies but becoming increasingly
prominent in the South ... ... 543
Baptists, especially in Rhode island, the middle colonies, the Carolinas,
and Virginia ........... ... 498
Anglicans, mainly in the South and in the larger towns elsewhere... 480
Quakers, mostly in Pennsylvania and North Carolina ........... 298
German and Dutch Reformed, mainly in the middle colonies ..... 251
Lutherans, largely in the middle colonies .. .. .............. 151
Roman Catholics, mainly in the large Eastern towns and in
Maryland.................... 50
Miscellaneous minor groups ... ...... ................ .. 76
________
3,005
_____________________________________________________________________________
Nationally
Congregationalist 21.13% (Their power was only found in New England)
Presbyterian 18.33%
Baptist 16.96%
Episcopal 16.36%
Quaker 8.96%
All others 18.26%
CHURCH AND STATE IN THE UNITED STATES, VOL. I Anson Phelps Stokes, D.D.,
LL.D Harper & Brothers, New York, (1950) page 273
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
===============================================
[EMPHASIS ADDED]
The still more important fact is that the type of article used in the
establishment clause makes no difference. The First Amendment does not say
that Congress shall not establish a religion or create an establishment of
religion. It says Congress shall make no law RESPECTING an establishment of
religion. Whether "respecting" connotes honoring or concerning, the clause
means that Congress shall make no law on that subject THE BAN IS NOT JUST
ON ESTABLISHMENTS OF RELIGION BUT ON LAWS RESPECTING
THEM, A FACT THAT ALLOWS A LAW TO FALL SHORT OF CREATING AN ESTABLISHMENT
YET STILL BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
(SOURCE: The Establishment Clause, Religion and the First Amendment,
Leonard W. Levy, Second Edition, Revised, The University of North Carolina
Press, (1994) p. 118
:|Beyond that, Jefferson routinely attended Sunday Christian worship
:|services - held in the Capitol Building.
We have been here and done this before
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats/browse_frm/thread/1e4b8a27675448f4/5e980906ae44df4f?lnk=st&q=Jefferson+attended+church+in+house+of+representatives+indians+catholic+priests++buckeye-elo&rnum=2&hl=en#5e980906ae44df4f
Your shorter link is: http://makeashorterlink.com/?K4FF2275C
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's set the record straight on the matter of Jefferson attending church,
church services held in Congress, Jefferson's conversion to Christianity,
etc.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.education/msg/a58f8cdd7e49aaae?hl=en
:|And he signed a bill
:|appropriating federal tax money for Catholic priests to Christianize the
:|Indians in the Northwest Territories.
Paying missionaries, nothing unusual. Most if not all Indian Agents were
also Indian Missionaries, most were Catholic Priests or lay people.
Documented evidence
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/d16618e4c607e3f6?hl=en&
:| Explain all THAT in light of your
:|precious "separation of church and state." You can't - because there is
:|no such thing. It is a 20th century invention by constitutional heretics
:|(who, unfortunately, did not stop there).
Actually I certainly did with historical and secondary evidence to support
it. In the following you will find a unbroken pedigree for chuerch state
separation from the closing of the Constitutional convention in Philly in
September 1789 to the present
Study Guide: Separation of Church and State - Indepth
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd0.htm
So much for your 20th century pipe dream
:|
:|And while you're at it, explain how three states managed to maintain
:|official state churches, paid for by tax money, into the second half of
:|the 19th century - during a period when the authors of the constitution
:|were alive and in a position to complain, had they considered it to be a
:|violation.
Second half of the 19th century, (1800s) huh?
Ooops you goofed again
On historical matters you aren't very well informed
Here is a comment by James Madison regarding the three New England States
[New Hampshire - finally disestablished in 1819; Connecticut - finally
disestablished in 1818; Massachusetts - which finally disestablished in
1833] that still had established religions into the 1800's (he made this
comment sometime after retiring from public office (1817).
"Ye States of America, which retain in your Constitutions or Codes, any
aberration from the sacred principle of religious liberty, by giving to
Caesar what belongs to God, or joining together what God has put asunder,
hasten to revise & purify your systems, and make the example of your
Country as pure & compleat, in what relates to the freedom of the mind and
its allegiance to its maker, as in what belongs to the legitimate objects
of political & civil institutions."
[Excerpts from Madison's Detached Memoranda.
This document was discovered in 1946 among the papers of William Cabell
Rives, a biographer of Madison. Scholars date these observations in
Madison's hand sometime between 1817 and 1832. They offer glimpses of
Madison's opinions on several topics and personalities. What follows is
that part of the "Memoranda" devoted to the subject of religious liberty.
The entire document was published by Elizabeth Fleet in the William and
Mary Quarterly of October 1946.]
:|without the slightest suspicion,
LOL, they had intense pressure from with their own boundaries and from
without which is why they did disestablish
:| But they did not - because it was not. One of those states,
:|by the way, was Massachusetts, the home state of our second and fifth
:|presidents. If they thought it was unconstitutional, they certainly had
:|standing to say so. But they didn't - because it wasn't.
LOL, oh well, I recommend you take some history courses
Have you ever heard of the 14th Article of 1789 and the 14th Amendment?
:|
:|So in just a few paragraphs, I have eclipsed all you "know" about the
:|constitution.
In a few paragraphs you have shown what a fool you are
**************************************************************
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: AMERICANS UNITED REPORT SAYS SUPREME COURT NOMINEE IS THREAT TO CHURCH-STATE SEPARATION |
17 Dec 2005 11:30:39 PM |
|
|
"Unpleasant Truth" <no.one@nowhere.com> wrote:
You, on the other hand, totally misunderstand the constitution.
You do.
Where does it say "separation of church and state?"
Where does it say "three coequal branches of government"? It doesn't.
It *describes* three coequal branches of government. Where does it
say "system of checks and balances"? It doesn't - it *describes* a
system of checks and balances.
It also describes "separation of church and state".
All it says is "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion,"
You are ignoring the "no religious tests" clause in the unamended
constitution, and the first religious clause, both of which are part
of the *description* of separation of church and state found in the
constitution.
i.e., there will be no national church, as there was in England.
That is NOT what the statement means, and never was what it meant.
All it applies to is "Congress," i.e., the federal
government, not the individual states.
Correct. It was the 14th amendment that eliminated the power of the
states to take away the rights of the people to free speech, free
press, free religion, and freedom from government-imposition of
religion, among others.
Explain all THAT in light of your
precious "separation of church and state." You can't - because there is
no such thing. It is a 20th century invention by constitutional heretics
Actually it was invented before Thomas Jefferson, he just happens to
have been the first well-known person who used the phrase.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Unpleasant Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: AMERICANS UNITED REPORT SAYS SUPREME COURT NOMINEE IS THREAT TO CHURCH-STATE SEPARATION |
20 Dec 2005 05:13:50 AM |
|
|
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:kgs9q1lkkpp0otuh49t7q666noo3l9bi55@4ax.com...
"Unpleasant Truth" <no.one@nowhere.com> wrote:
You, on the other hand, totally misunderstand the constitution.
You do.
Where does it say "separation of church and state?"
Where does it say "three coequal branches of government"? It doesn't.
It *describes* three coequal branches of government. Where does it
say "system of checks and balances"? It doesn't - it *describes* a
system of checks and balances.
It also describes "separation of church and state".
No it does not. What it does say is, "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof."
All it says is "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion,"
You are ignoring the "no religious tests" clause in the unamended
constitution, and the first religious clause, both of which are part
of the *description* of separation of church and state found in the
constitution.
The religious tests clause only applies to qualifications for public
office. It does not mean courts can prevent people from praying in public
venues or tell state legislatures "Jesus" is a censored word.
i.e., there will be no national church, as there was in England.
That is NOT what the statement means, and never was what it meant.
It's exactly what it meant.
Hint: if you want a definition of "establishment" just look up the meaning
of one of the longest words in the language:
"antidisestablishmentarianism."
All it applies to is "Congress," i.e., the federal
government, not the individual states.
Correct. It was the 14th amendment that eliminated the power of the
states to take away the rights of the people to free speech, free
press, free religion, and freedom from government-imposition of
religion, among others.
Bull! That was another invention - fabricated by ex-Klansman Hugo Black
(the Klan was virulently anti-Catholic) almost 100 years after the
amendment was ratified. It has since been used to greatly increase
federal power at the expense of the states,. Like all left wing ideas, it
metastasized to take away our protections against an all powerful federal
government which now consumes 20% of our GDP, 2/3 of which is for
constitutionally unauthorized spending that has guaranteed the country's
eventual destruction.
Do you actually think the states ratified an amendment they thought was
intended to nullify the Tenth Amendment protecting states rights?
The genius of the founding fathers was to give us a "united states" where
each state has the maximum freedom to make its own rules. You
collectivists (who would have all been Tories, anyway, with your love of
centralized fascist power and high taxes) have ruined that and greatly
diminished our freedom.
Explain all THAT in light of your
precious "separation of church and state." You can't - because there
is
no such thing. It is a 20th century invention by constitutional
heretics
Actually it was invented before Thomas Jefferson, he just happens to
have been the first well-known person who used the phrase.
Not as a constitutional principle. Just imagine if anything a lawmaker
wrote in a letter could be incorporated into constitutional principles.
Such letters can, of course, be valuable insights into intent. But how
such laws/amendments are put into practice by the people who passed them
is far more important. And the fact remains the federal government was
actively supportive of Christian religion, with the appointment of
chaplains, proclamations acknowledging God (most notably Washington),
funding of Catholic priests to Christianize the Indians in the Northwest
Territories (Jefferson) and regular Sunday Christian worship services held
in the capitol building (routinely attended by Jefferson, among others).
Nuts like the ACLU would no doubt claim any such acts were
"unconstitutional" today. I guess they think they - and the left wing
activist judges who routinely agree with them - know the constitution
better than the founding fathers.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: AMERICANS UNITED REPORT SAYS SUPREME COURT NOMINEE IS THREAT TO CHURCH-STATE SEPARATION |
20 Dec 2005 07:18:09 AM |
|
|
"Unpleasant Truth" <no.one@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:kgs9q1lkkpp0otuh49t7q666noo3l9bi55@4ax.com...
"Unpleasant Truth" <no.one@nowhere.com> wrote:
You, on the other hand, totally misunderstand the constitution.
You do.
Where does it say "separation of church and state?"
Where does it say "three coequal branches of government"? It doesn't.
It *describes* three coequal branches of government. Where does it
say "system of checks and balances"? It doesn't - it *describes* a
system of checks and balances.
It also describes "separation of church and state".
No it does not. What it does say is, "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof."
which *describes* "separation of church and state", if the amendment
is followed absolutely.
The government cannot legal take any action without a law permitting
it to do so being passed by Congress. Thus, if Congress can pass no
law respecting an establishment of religion, then the government can
take no action respecting an establishment of religion. Legally, any
financial assistance to a religious group or official government
endorsement or rejection of a religious belief (including a belief in
God) is an establishment of religion.
All it says is "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion,"
You are ignoring the "no religious tests" clause in the unamended
constitution, and the first religious clause, both of which are part
of the *description* of separation of church and state found in the
constitution.
The religious tests clause only applies to qualifications for public
office.
Nope. Offices or public trusts.
It does not mean courts can prevent people from praying in public
venues
Courts don't prevent people from praying in public venues when they
are acting as "people". When they are employed as agents of the
government, then they are constrained to follow those provisions which
restrain the government.
or tell state legislatures "Jesus" is a censored word.
State legislatures are covered by the 14th amendment, which keeps them
from being able to do anything that the Federal government can't do in
the area of our rights.
i.e., there will be no national church, as there was in England.
That is NOT what the statement means, and never was what it meant.
It's exactly what it meant.
If that was what they meant, then they would have said "Congress shall
establish no religion. They did not say that; they said "no law
*respecting* *an* establishment of religion. The indefinite article
means that it restricts any sort of tie to establishments of religion,
no matter who creates them. The "respecting" restricts any sort of
connection and not just the act of establishing.
Hint: if you want a definition of "establishment" just look up the meaning
of one of the longest words in the language:
"antidisestablishmentarianism."
Sorry but committing an etymological fallacy doesn't help your case.
All it applies to is "Congress," i.e., the federal
government, not the individual states.
Correct. It was the 14th amendment that eliminated the power of the
states to take away the rights of the people to free speech, free
press, free religion, and freedom from government-imposition of
religion, among others.
Bull! That was another invention - fabricated by ex-Klansman Hugo Black
(the Klan was virulently anti-Catholic) almost 100 years after the
amendment was ratified.
Since the first supreme court cases incorporating the 1st amendment
were on freedom of speech, anti-Catholicism is irrelevant.
Furthermore, the Everson decision was unanimous in saying that the
establishment clause was incorporated (the majority side said it was
incorporated but did not apply to the NJ case being dealt with; the
minority said that it did apply).
It has since been used to greatly increase
federal power at the expense of the states.
That was precisely the intent when it was passed. Remember that it
was part of the fallout from the civil war, and the victors wanted to
punish the states and make it impossible to ever to that sort of thing
again. States has in fact trampled on civil rights even of whites in
the lead up to the civil war.
Like all left wing ideas, it
metastasized to take away our protections against an all powerful federal
government
In 1860 it was state governments that were all powerful. The 14th is
a check on state power.
which now consumes 20% of our GDP, 2/3 of which is for
constitutionally unauthorized spending that has guaranteed the country's
eventual destruction.
Constitutional provisions that limit federal and state power should
therefore be welcomed.
Do you actually think the states ratified an amendment they thought was
intended to nullify the Tenth Amendment protecting states rights?
Yes. In the Reconstruction Era, "states rights" were not something to
stand up for. And the 14th was part of the price the states paid for
trying to make war on the Federal government.
The genius of the founding fathers was to give us a "united states" where
each state has the maximum freedom to make its own rules.
The genius of the post civil war, was to slam the states down to where
they should be, leaving the people and not the states as sovereign to
the maximum extent possible.
You
collectivists (who would have all been Tories, anyway, with your love of
centralized fascist power and high taxes) have ruined that and greatly
diminished our freedom.
The 14th amendment limits fascist power from being centralized at the
state level as well as the federal level.
Taxation is an entirely separate matter. We elect the
Congresscritters that pass those taxes.
Explain all THAT in light of your
precious "separation of church and state." You can't - because there is
no such thing. It is a 20th century invention by constitutional heretics
Actually it was invented before Thomas Jefferson, he just happens to
have been the first well-known person who used the phrase.
Not as a constitutional principle.
Since we have writings of Madison in support of separation as a
principle, and he was more than any one person the author of the
Constitution and the Bill of Rights, you are incorrect.
Furthermore, while there was no Federal case on separation until the
20th century, there were state cases in the 19th century in several
states.
Just imagine if anything a lawmaker
wrote in a letter could be incorporated into constitutional principles.
Such letters can, of course, be valuable insights into intent. But how
such laws/amendments are put into practice by the people who passed them
is far more important. And the fact remains the federal government was
actively supportive of Christian religion, with the appointment of
chaplains, proclamations acknowledging God (most notably Washington),
funding of Catholic priests to Christianize the Indians in the Northwest
Territories (Jefferson) and regular Sunday Christian worship services held
in the capitol building (routinely attended by Jefferson, among others).
Nuts like the ACLU would no doubt claim any such acts were
"unconstitutional" today. I guess they think they - and the left wing
activist judges who routinely agree with them - know the constitution
better than the founding fathers.
Jefferson also made the Louisiana Purchase while stating at the time
that it was probably unconstitutional to do so. Guess what - a third
of the US is still part of the country.
And since the modern doctrine of incorporation was adopted pretty much
unanimously by the court over a 40 year period, it most certainly is
not the product solely of "left wing activist judges".
lojbab
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: AMERICANS UNITED REPORT SAYS SUPREME COURT NOMINEE IS THREAT TO CHURCH-STATE SEPARATION |
20 Dec 2005 07:56:22 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 04:13:50 -0700, "Unpleasant Truth"
<no.one@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:kgs9q1lkkpp0otuh49t7q666noo3l9bi55@4ax.com...
"Unpleasant Truth" <no.one@nowhere.com> wrote:
You, on the other hand, totally misunderstand the constitution.
You do.
Where does it say "separation of church and state?"
Where does it say "three coequal branches of government"? It doesn't.
It *describes* three coequal branches of government. Where does it
say "system of checks and balances"? It doesn't - it *describes* a
system of checks and balances.
It also describes "separation of church and state".
No it does not. What it does say is, "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof.
Rectified by the 14th amendment, stupid
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: AMERICANS UNITED REPORT SAYS SUPREME COURT NOMINEE IS THREAT TO CHURCH-STATE SEPARATION |
22 Dec 2005 02:12:22 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 04:13:50 -0700, "Unpleasant Truth"
<no.one@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:kgs9q1lkkpp0otuh49t7q666noo3l9bi55@4ax.com...
"Unpleasant Truth" <no.one@nowhere.com> wrote:
You, on the other hand, totally misunderstand the constitution.
You do.
Where does it say "separation of church and state?"
Where does it say "three coequal branches of government"? It doesn't.
It *describes* three coequal branches of government. Where does it
say "system of checks and balances"? It doesn't - it *describes* a
system of checks and balances.
It also describes "separation of church and state".
No it does not. What it does say is, "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof."
Please learn the difference between a person acting as an individual
and as an agent of the government.
All it says is "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion,"
You are ignoring the "no religious tests" clause in the unamended
constitution, and the first religious clause, both of which are part
of the *description* of separation of church and state found in the
constitution.
The religious tests clause only applies to qualifications for public
office. It does not mean courts can prevent people from praying in public
venues or tell state legislatures "Jesus" is a censored word.
But the first amendment as extended to state and local government by
the fourteenth prevents a an agent of the government being religious.
i.e., there will be no national church, as there was in England.
That is NOT what the statement means, and never was what it meant.
It's exactly what it meant.
Learn to read for comprehension. You cited the first amendment
earlier. The indefinite article is missing. What do you imagine that
means: hint: it means they can't establish religion even generically.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bull" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Re: AMERICANS UNITED REPORT SAYS SUPREME COURT NOMINEE IS THREAT TO CHURCH-STATE SEPARATION |
17 Dec 2005 07:41:12 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 18:31:52 -0700, "Unpleasant
Truth" <no.one@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Bull" <BDurham@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:jhu8q1tjdncrv2cjmmatp741lajokq9151@4ax.com...
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 13:45:30 -0700, "Unpleasant
Truth" <no.one@nowhere.com> wrote:
<buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:86a6q1psbp6fb1afa7t1u4ol4nbpdh04tf@4ax.com...
For Immediate Release
December 16, 2005
Americans United for Separation of Church and
State
Contact: Joe Conn or Rob Boston
http://www.au.org/site/R?i=gkZl9Vy89krmej3lXW4D6g..
AMERICANS UNITED REPORT SAYS SUPREME COURT
NOMINEE IS THREAT TO
CHURCH-STATE SEPARATION
Let's hope so, since THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS
"CHURCH-STATE SEPARATION"
IN THE CONSTITUTION.
[Anti-]Religious Liberty Watchdog Group Calls
On
Senate To Reject Alito
Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. harbors a narrow
[i.e., constitutional]
view of religious liberty and
would likely join the Supreme Court's most
conservative [ i.e., faithful
to the constitution]
members in
dismantling the [fradulent, made up] wall
separating religion and
government, says [anti-constitution]
Americans United for Separation of Church and
State.
You must have just landed on this planet. Maybe
someday you'll be able to take a little time in
order to understand the constitution. Clearly
you
know very little about it. Maybe you'll also
become able to communicate using established
alphabetic letters and a little basic grammar.
OK, so I mistyped "fraudulent."
You, on the other hand, totally misunderstand the
constitution.
Where does it say "separation of church and
state?" The answer is
nowhere. All it says is "Congress shall make no
law respecting an
establishment of religion," i.e., there will be no
national church, as
there was in England. All it applies to is
"Congress," i.e., the federal
government, not the individual states. Even the
atheists' favorite
president, Jefferson, recognized that when he
wrote,
"In matters of religion, I have considered
that its free
exercise is placed by the constitution
independent of
the powers of the general government. I have
therefore
undertaken, on no occasion, to prescribe the
religious
exercises suited to it; but have left them,
as the
constitution found them, under the direction
and
discipline of state or church authorities
acknowledged
by the several religious societies." - Thomas
Jefferson,
Second Inaugural Address.
Beyond that, Jefferson routinely attended Sunday
Christian worship
services - held in the Capitol Building. And he
signed a bill
appropriating federal tax money for Catholic
priests to Christianize the
Indians in the Northwest Territories. Explain all
THAT in light of your
precious "separation of church and state." You
can't - because there is
no such thing. It is a 20th century invention by
constitutional heretics
(who, unfortunately, did not stop there).
And while you're at it, explain how three states
managed to maintain
official state churches, paid for by tax money,
into the second half of
the 19th century - during a period when the
authors of the constitution
were alive and in a position to complain, had they
considered it to be a
violation. But they did not - because it was not.
One of those states,
by the way, was Massachusetts, the home state of
our second and fifth
presidents. If they thought it was
unconstitutional, they certainly had
standing to say so. But they didn't - because it
wasn't.
So in just a few paragraphs, I have eclipsed all
you "know" about the
constitution.
Who cares?
__
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: AMERICANS UNITED REPORT SAYS SUPREME COURT NOMINEE IS THREAT TO CHURCH-STATE SEPARATION |
19 Dec 2005 01:51:54 PM |
|
|
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
:|What a hypocritical, cop-out reply! :^(
:|
:|Your pathetic rebuttal is nothing but a vague generalization about the
:|Constitution; it's actually unconstitutional. You're goal is evidently
:|to make people "prisoners" of conscious of dishonest, anti-religious
:|expression interpretations of the Constitution.
:|
:|>
:|> __
Radicals in Robes (insignt into fred )
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/c361b42ef2cf861d?hl=en&
Your shorter link is: http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q3225275C
******************************************************************************************
Evidence that shoots down just about every bit of fred's propaganda
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/290a32cf157dec89?hl=en&
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R2651235C
Topics covered in the above that shoot downs fred's propaganda:
Differentiating the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses
*************************************************************************
James Madison on Separation of Church and State
Direct references to separation to be found in the writings of James
Madison
**************************************************************************
What legal standing did the Kentucky Resolutions have?
Hint: none!!!!!!!!
***********************************************************************
Meet another theocrat Meet Alan L. Keyes
Home site
------------------------------------
Religious Liberty as defined by him (alan Keyes)
------------------------------------
Alan Keyes / Alan Dershowitz
Does Organized Religion Hold Answers to the Problems of the 21st Century?
Debate, September 27, 2000
-------------------------------------
Alan Keyes vs
On the establishment of religion: What the Constitution really says
August 26, 2003
-------------------------------------------
Alans Keyes Positions on Particular Issues
***************************************************************************
Comments by Bob LeChevalier (alt.education guy fred wants to avoid)
****************************************************************************
ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE:, EVERSON & FOOTNOTES TO EVERSON
****************************************************************************
some commentary by Adenoid-Hin
Christ sake fred
"Essays" aren't law.
Citizens are afforded equal protection of law.
States cannot address constitutional questions that affect ALL
citizens and "interpretations" other than the USSC are bogus.
Government (state, local, federal) cannot set up, endorse, promote,
pander to, wink at, or in any way favor religious stupidity as policy.
Whether "Jefferson said" so or not, the interpretaton by the USSC (the
ONLY entity allowed to do so) has established that doctrine
generations ago.
Offering "essays", "writings", or other non-relevant, extraneous crap
won't alter the fact.
***********************************************************
The Nineteenth Century Supreme Court and “Republican Protestantism”
************************************************************
The Tenth Amendment was altered so that it really isn't as clear as many
people seem to think
(1) THE TENTH AMENDMENT
(2) THE BILL OF RIGHTS & THE TENTH AMENDMENT,
(3) THERE HAVE BEEN ATTEMPTS TO UNDERMINE WHAT THE FOUNDERS PASSED BY
ADDING THE WORD EXPRESSLY TO THE TENTH AMENDMENT: THE BATTLE OVER THE TENTH
AMENDMENT: OPENING A SECOND FRONT
************************************************************
Amend. To improve. To change for the better by
removing defects or faults. To change, correct,
revise. See Amendment.
Amendment. To change or modify for the better.
To alter by modification, deletion, or addition.
SOURCE: Black's Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition Centennial Edition
(1891-1991) West Publishing (1991) p 52
********************************************************
I said it was modified, not revoked. The 1st reads, "Congress shall
make no law ...". The 14th reads "No State shall make ... any law ..."
The 14th modifies the 1st to effectively read, "Congress and the
States shall make no law ..."
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 16:55:12 -0500
From: Josh Rosenbluth to fred
*****************************************************
The Williamsburg Charter, 1988
A Reaffirmation of the First Amendment
********************************************************************
Fourteenth Amendment, Selective Incorporation
***************************************************************
The following list shows the provisions in the Bill of Rights that have
been incorporated via the 14th Amendment:
[list snipped]
*****************************************************************
JEFFERSON DIDN'T CREATE CHURCH STATE SEPARAITON
However, Jefferson didn't create church state separation:
The principle of church state separation was embodied in the unamended
constitution long before Jefferson wrote a word to the Danbury Baptist
Assoc.
Study Guide: Separation of Church and State - Indepth
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd0.htm
That honor belongs far more to James Madison
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.education/msg/f337c95be318d68b?hl=en&
Your shorter link is: http://makeashorterlink.com/?F2021275C
*******************************************************************************************
Everson v. Bd of Ed defined the Establishment Clasue.
Here are the footnotes that the court used to pen the definition:
FOOTNOTES TO EVERSON v. BD OF ED.
http://snurl.com/2pro
**************************************************************
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: "" |
|
| Title: Re: AMERICANS UNITED REPORT SAYS SUPREME COURT NOMINEE IS THREAT TO CHURCH-STATE SEPARATION |
20 Dec 2005 08:11:03 AM |
|
|
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
:|What a hypocritical, cop-out reply! :^(
:|
:|Your pathetic rebuttal is nothing but a vague generalization about the
:|Constitution; it's actually unconstitutional. You're goal is evidently
:|to make people "prisoners" of conscious of dishonest, anti-religious
:|expression interpretations of the Constitution.
:|
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
:|alt.education removed.
chicken *****
Alt.education is restored
:|Not only is "separation of church and state" not in the Constitution,
:|but the article referenced above fails the 10th Amendment test:
LET US LOOK TO HISTORY:
"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 (1923) (Holmes, J.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) APRIL 14, 1800
THE GAZETTE
PHILADELPHIA
MONDAY EVENING, APRIL 14.
The condition of Church and State in America is such as to fill
every considerate mind with the most unhappy sensations. In spite of that
vanity and fastidiousness which led the Federal Convention, in founding
their government, to preclude any connection, it will appear in the end,
even by our own deplorable example, that a strict and indissoluble alliance
of religion to government has been ordained in the nature of things. Though
formally sundered by Constitution and laws; together they decline and
together (it would seem) they are likely to perish. (SOURCE OF INFORMATION:
THE GAZETTE OF THE UNITED STATES, APRIL 14, 1800 JAN 1, 1800 TO DEC 31,
1800 MFILM N.S. 10953 AP2.05
------------------------------------------------
(2) "The remaining part of the clause declares, that 'no religious test
shall ever be required, as a qualification to any office or public trust,
under the United States.' This clause is not introduced merely for the
purpose of satisfying the scruples of many respectable persons, who feel an
invincible repugnance to any test or affirmation. It had a higher object;
to cut off for ever every pretence of any alliance between church and
state in the national government. "
(COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES, by Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, Vol III, (1833) pg 705)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
James Madison says separation is in the Constitution:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/e1d3e562348cec49?hl=en&
Your shorter link is: http://makeashorterlink.com/?U2AE1275C
************************************************************************
Radicals in Robes (insignt into fred )
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/c361b42ef2cf861d?hl=en&
Your shorter link is: http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q3225275C
***********************************************************************
Evidence that shoots down just about every bit of fred's propaganda
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/290a32cf157dec89?hl=en&
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R2651235C
Topics covered in the above that shoot downs fred's propaganda:
Differentiating the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses
*************************************************************************
James Madison on Separation of Church and State
Direct references to separation to be found in the writings of James
Madison
**************************************************************************
What legal standing did the Kentucky Resolutions have?
Hint: none!!!!!!!!
***********************************************************************
Meet another theocrat Meet Alan L. Keyes
Home site
------------------------------------
Religious Liberty as defined by him (alan Keyes)
------------------------------------
Alan Keyes / Alan Dershowitz
Does Organized Religion Hold Answers to the Problems of the 21st Century?
Debate, September 27, 2000
-------------------------------------
Alan Keyes vs
On the establishment of religion: What the Constitution really says
August 26, 2003
-------------------------------------------
Alans Keyes Positions on Particular Issues
***************************************************************************
Comments by Bob LeChevalier (alt.education guy fred wants to avoid)
****************************************************************************
ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE:, EVERSON & FOOTNOTES TO EVERSON
****************************************************************************
some commentary by Adenoid-Hin
Christ sake fred
"Essays" aren't law.
Citizens are afforded equal protection of law.
States cannot address constitutional questions that affect ALL
citizens and "interpretations" other than the USSC are bogus.
Government (state, local, federal) cannot set up, endorse, promote,
pander to, wink at, or in any way favor religious stupidity as policy.
Whether "Jefferson said" so or not, the interpretaton by the USSC (the
ONLY entity allowed to do so) has established that doctrine
generations ago.
Offering "essays", "writings", or other non-relevant, extraneous crap
won't alter the fact.
***********************************************************
The Nineteenth Century Supreme Court and "Republican Protestantism"
************************************************************
The Tenth Amendment was altered so that it really isn't as clear as many
people seem to think
(1) THE TENTH AMENDMENT
(2) THE BILL OF RIGHTS & THE TENTH AMENDMENT,
(3) THERE HAVE BEEN ATTEMPTS TO UNDERMINE WHAT THE FOUNDERS PASSED BY
ADDING THE WORD EXPRESSLY TO THE TENTH AMENDMENT: THE BATTLE OVER THE TENTH
AMENDMENT: OPENING A SECOND FRONT
************************************************************
Amend. To improve. To change for the better by
removing defects or faults. To change, correct,
revise. See Amendment.
Amendment. To change or modify for the better.
To alter by modification, deletion, or addition.
SOURCE: Black's Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition Centennial Edition
(1891-1991) West Publishing (1991) p 52
********************************************************
I said it was modified, not revoked. The 1st reads, "Congress shall
make no law ...". The 14th reads "No State shall make ... any law ..."
The 14th modifies the 1st to effectively read, "Congress and the
States shall make no law ..."
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 16:55:12 -0500
From: Josh Rosenbluth to fred
*****************************************************
The Williamsburg Charter, 1988
A Reaffirmation of the First Amendment
********************************************************************
Fourteenth Amendment, Selective Incorporation
***************************************************************
The following list shows the provisions in the Bill of Rights that have
been incorporated via the 14th Amendment:
[list snipped]
*****************************************************************
JEFFERSON DIDN'T CREATE CHURCH STATE SEPARAITON
However, Jefferson didn't create church state separation:
The principle of church state separation was embodied in the unamended
constitution long before Jefferson wrote a word to the Danbury Baptist
Assoc.
Study Guide: Separation of Church and State - Indepth
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd0.htm
That honor belongs far more to James Madison
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.education/msg/f337c95be318d68b?hl=en&
Your shorter link is: http://makeashorterlink.com/?F2021275C
******************************************************************************
*************
Everson v. Bd of Ed defined the Establishment Clasue.
Here are the footnotes that the court used to pen the definition:
FOOTNOTES TO EVERSON v. BD OF ED.
http://snurl.com/2pro
**************************************************************
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: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: AMERICANS UNITED REPORT SAYS SUPREME COURT NOMINEE IS THREAT TO CHURCH-STATE SEPARATION |
17 Dec 2005 03:53:22 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 13:45:30 -0700, in alt.atheism
"Unpleasant Truth" <no.one@nowhere.com> wrote in
<dN_of.359$xF6.71@fed1read01>:
<buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:86a6q1psbp6fb1afa7t1u4ol4nbpdh04tf@4ax.com...
For Immediate Release
December 16, 2005
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
Contact: Joe Conn or Rob Boston
http://www.au.org/site/R?i=gkZl9Vy89krmej3lXW4D6g..
AMERICANS UNITED REPORT SAYS SUPREME COURT NOMINEE IS THREAT TO
CHURCH-STATE SEPARATION
Let's hope so, since THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "CHURCH-STATE SEPARATION"
IN THE CONSTITUTION.
You are confused. The 'separation of church and state' is the shorthand
name of what we have done in our constitution to keep the the state from
running the church or the church from running the state. Your argument
is pointless and comes across as profoundly ignorant of American
constitutional history.
[Anti-]Religious Liberty Watchdog Group Calls On Senate To Reject Alito
Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. harbors a narrow [i.e., constitutional]
view of religious liberty and
would likely join the Supreme Court's most conservative [ i.e., faithful
to the constitution]
members in
dismantling the [fradulent, made up] wall separating religion and
government, says [anti-constitution]
Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: AMERICANS UNITED REPORT SAYS SUPREME COURT NOMINEE IS THREAT TO CHURCH-STATE SEPARATION; fails 10th A. test |
19 Dec 2005 01:50:42 PM |
|
|
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
:|alt.education removed.
alt, education which fred seems to want to avoid as much as possible is
restored
:|You aren't being honest with yourself or anybody else and you know it.
:|So-called 'separation of church and state' is a perverted,
:|anti-religious expression interpretation of the establishment clause.
:|The so-called "wall of separation" completely ignores the 10th
:|Amendment in which the States reserved for themselves the power to
:|legislate religion since the States prohibited this power explicitly
:|only to Congress in the 1st Amendment, the States having establish
:|Congress in the first place.
:|
:|"Article 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the
:|Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
:|States respectively, or to the people."
:|
:|When the 1st and 10th Amendments are considered together, it is
:|reasonable to conclude that the 10th reserved the power to legislate
:|religion to the States since the 1st explicitly prohibited this power
:|only to Congress (federal government; aka United States). Church-state
:|separation discussions which fail to mention the 10th are based on the
:|Court's scandalous interpretation of the establishment clause in the
:|Everson opinion:
:|
:|"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.
Radicals in Robes (insignt into fred )
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/c361b42ef2cf861d?hl=en&
Your shorter link is: http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q3225275C
******************************************************************************************
Evidence that shoots down just about every bit of fred's propaganda
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/290a32cf157dec89?hl=en&
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R2651235C
Topics covered in the above that shoot downs fred's propaganda:
Differentiating the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses
*************************************************************************
James Madison on Separation of Church and State
Direct references to separation to be found in the writings of James
Madison
**************************************************************************
What legal standing did the Kentucky Resolutions have?
Hint: none!!!!!!!!
***********************************************************************
Meet another theocrat Meet Alan L. Keyes
Home site
------------------------------------
Religious Liberty as defined by him (alan Keyes)
------------------------------------
Alan Keyes / Alan Dershowitz
Does Organized Religion Hold Answers to the Problems of the 21st Century?
Debate, September 27, 2000
-------------------------------------
Alan Keyes vs
On the establishment of religion: What the Constitution really says
August 26, 2003
-------------------------------------------
Alans Keyes Positions on Particular Issues
***************************************************************************
Comments by Bob LeChevalier (alt.education guy fred wants to avoid)
****************************************************************************
ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE:, EVERSON & FOOTNOTES TO EVERSON
****************************************************************************
some commentary by Adenoid-Hin
Christ sake fred
"Essays" aren't law.
Citizens are afforded equal protection of law.
States cannot address constitutional questions that affect ALL
citizens and "interpretations" other than the USSC are bogus.
Government (state, local, federal) cannot set up, endorse, promote,
pander to, wink at, or in any way favor religious stupidity as policy.
Whether "Jefferson said" so or not, the interpretaton by the USSC (the
ONLY entity allowed to do so) has established that doctrine
generations ago.
Offering "essays", "writings", or other non-relevant, extraneous crap
won't alter the fact.
***********************************************************
The Nineteenth Century Supreme Court and “Republican Protestantism”
************************************************************
The Tenth Amendment was altered so that it really isn't as clear as many
people seem to think
(1) THE TENTH AMENDMENT
(2) THE BILL OF RIGHTS & THE TENTH AMENDMENT,
(3) THERE HAVE BEEN ATTEMPTS TO UNDERMINE WHAT THE FOUNDERS PASSED BY
ADDING THE WORD EXPRESSLY TO THE TENTH AMENDMENT: THE BATTLE OVER THE TENTH
AMENDMENT: OPENING A SECOND FRONT
************************************************************
Amend. To improve. To change for the better by
removing defects or faults. To change, correct,
revise. See Amendment.
Amendment. To change or modify for the better.
To alter by modification, deletion, or addition.
SOURCE: Black's Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition Centennial Edition
(1891-1991) West Publishing (1991) p 52
********************************************************
I said it was modified, not revoked. The 1st reads, "Congress shall
make no law ...". The 14th reads "No State shall make ... any law ..."
The 14th modifies the 1st to effectively read, "Congress and the
States shall make no law ..."
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 16:55:12 -0500
From: Josh Rosenbluth to fred
*****************************************************
The Williamsburg Charter, 1988
A Reaffirmation of the First Amendment
********************************************************************
Fourteenth Amendment, Selective Incorporation
***************************************************************
The following list shows the provisions in the Bill of Rights that have
been incorporated via the 14th Amendment:
[list snipped]
*****************************************************************
JEFFERSON DIDN'T CREATE CHURCH STATE SEPARAITON
However, Jefferson didn't create church state separation:
The principle of church state separation was embodied in the unamended
constitution long before Jefferson wrote a word to the Danbury Baptist
Assoc.
Study Guide: Separation of Church and State - Indepth
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd0.htm
That honor belongs far more to James Madison
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.education/msg/f337c95be318d68b?hl=en&
Your shorter link is: http://makeashorterlink.com/?F2021275C
*******************************************************************************************
Everson v. Bd of Ed defined the Establishment Clasue.
Here are the footnotes that the court used to pen the definition:
FOOTNOTES TO EVERSON v. BD OF ED.
http://snurl.com/2pro
**************************************************************
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: "" |
|
| Title: Re: AMERICANS UNITED REPORT SAYS SUPREME COURT NOMINEE IS THREAT TO CHURCH-STATE SEPARATION; fails 10th A. test |
18 Dec 2005 08:57:35 AM |
|
|
David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
:|
:|Fred, you have repeated this assertion ad nauseum. For all practical
:|matters no one involved in the law or government buys your argument.
:|Now, it may be possible in your mind that you are the only one in the
:|world who understands the constitution properly, but you have a long
:|haul to persuade anyone. So far, your repetition of unconvincing
:|arguments makes me believe that you never will.
You might find this of interest
Anyone want to get a bit of insight into fred? Here is some insight into
where he is coming from
RADICALS IN ROBES. Why Extreme Right-Wing Courts Are Wrong for America.
Cass R, Sunstein Basic Books (2005)
EXCERPTS
FROM THE FRONT JACKET
Even with the recent changes in its makeup, most people think the Supreme
Court is roughly balanced between left and right. This is a myth. In fact
the justices once considered right-wing are now the Court's moderates;
those who were once centrists are now the Court's "liberals"; and the
liberal element once represented by Thurgood Marshall and William Brennan
has all but disappeared.
Many people also think that judicial activism is the province of liberals.
This is also a myth; since William Rehnquist was confirmed as Chief Justice
in 1986, the Supreme Court has struck down decisions of Congress more than
thirty times—an unprecedented record of judicial activism. Some
conservatives want to return to the eighteenth-century Constitution or to
restore "the Constitution in Exile," by which they mean the Constitution as
it existed before the administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
In Radicals in Robes, Cass R. Sunstein explains what this constitutional
vision would mean. It would endanger enviromnental regulations, campaign
finance laws, and the right to privacy. It would threaten the Federal
Communications Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the
Environmental Protection Agency, and many other federal agencies. It might
well allow states to establish official religions. It would impose sharp
new limits on Congress's authority to protect rights.
Radicals in Robes pulls away the veil of rhetoric from a dangerous and
radical movement and issues a strong and passionate warning about what | | | |
