Appeals Ct: "separation" is extra-constitutional and tiresome

Sociology > Education > Appeals Ct: "separation" is extra-constitutional and tiresome

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 2

Topic:	Sociology > Education
User:	"The Fool"
Date:	24 Dec 2005 02:15:18 PM
Object:	Appeals Ct: "separation" is extra-constitutional and tiresome

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals just ruled that the Ten Commandments
can remain in a Kentucky courthouse, and, further, in the opinion they
said...
"First, the ACLU makes repeated reference to "the separation of
church and state." This extra-constitutional construct has grown
tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation
between church and state. See Lynch, 465 U.S. at 673; Lemon, 403 U.S.
at 614; Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 312 (1952); Brown v. Gilmore,
258 F.3d 265, 274 (4th Cir. 2001); Stark v. Indep. Sch. Dist., No.
640., 123 F.3d 1068, 1076 (8th Cir. 1997); see also Capitol Square, 243
F.3d at 300 (dismissing strict separatism as "a notion that simply
perverts our history")."
Finally, the courts are undoing the damage they did when they referred
to it in the past.
They also said...
"Third, the ACLU erroneously-though perhaps intentionally-equates
recognition with endorsement. To endorse is necessarily to recognize,
but the converse does not follow. Cf. Mercer County, 219 F. Supp. 2d at
789 ("Endorsement of religion is a normative concept; whereas
acknowledgment of religion is not necessarily a value-laden
concept.")."
Amen.
Ken Clifton
christianjedi.com
christiancelebrity.com
somebodysaveme.com
.

User: "The Fool"
Title: Re: Appeals Ct: "separation" is extra-constitutional and tiresome	24 Dec 2005 11:52:22 PM

I guess no one thought they could deal with this, so they just ignored
it.
The Fool wrote:

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals just ruled that the Ten Commandments
can remain in a Kentucky courthouse, and, further, in the opinion they
said...

"First, the ACLU makes repeated reference to "the separation of
church and state." This extra-constitutional construct has grown
tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation
between church and state. See Lynch, 465 U.S. at 673; Lemon, 403 U.S.
at 614; Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 312 (1952); Brown v. Gilmore,
258 F.3d 265, 274 (4th Cir. 2001); Stark v. Indep. Sch. Dist., No.
640., 123 F.3d 1068, 1076 (8th Cir. 1997); see also Capitol Square, 243
F.3d at 300 (dismissing strict separatism as "a notion that simply
perverts our history")."

Finally, the courts are undoing the damage they did when they referred
to it in the past.

They also said...

"Third, the ACLU erroneously-though perhaps intentionally-equates
recognition with endorsement. To endorse is necessarily to recognize,
but the converse does not follow. Cf. Mercer County, 219 F. Supp. 2d at
789 ("Endorsement of religion is a normative concept; whereas
acknowledgment of religion is not necessarily a value-laden
concept.")."

Amen.

Ken Clifton
christianjedi.com
christiancelebrity.com
somebodysaveme.com

Ken Clifton
christianjedi.com
christiancelebrity.com
somebodysaveme.com
.

User: "Bob LeChevalier"
Title: Re: Appeals Ct: "separation" is extra-constitutional and tiresome	25 Dec 2005 01:05:26 AM

"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:

I guess no one thought they could deal with this, so they just ignored
it.

The Fool wrote:

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals just ruled that the Ten Commandments
can remain in a Kentucky courthouse, and, further, in the opinion they
said...

What's to say? It will go to the USSC which has ruled otherwise in
the past, and the USSC will overturn it unless Bush has succeeded in
packing the court, in which case it will stand.
lojbab
.

User: "The Fool"
Title: Re: Appeals Ct: "separation" is extra-constitutional and tiresome	26 Dec 2005 11:28:49 PM

Bob LeChevalier wrote:

"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:

I guess no one thought they could deal with this, so they just ignored
it.

The Fool wrote:

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals just ruled that the Ten Commandments
can remain in a Kentucky courthouse, and, further, in the opinion they
said...

What's to say? It will go to the USSC which has ruled otherwise in
the past, and the USSC will overturn it unless Bush has succeeded in
packing the court, in which case it will stand.

lojbab

You, of course, know the Supreme Court issued split rulings on the
issue last year, but your ability produce the truth, and nothing but
the truth, still has to be ruled upon. The judge in that area is the
Lord, and I'll leave it up to him.
Ken Clifton
christianjedi.com
christiancelebrity.com
somebodysaveme.com
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Appeals Ct: "separation" is extra-constitutional and tiresome	27 Dec 2005 01:33:14 PM

"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:

You might want to actually read the cases and then you might find the
following to be of interest but I doubt you really wish to know
JUNE 27, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------
U S Supreme Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
McCreary County v. ACLU, No. 03-1693 (U.S.S.C. June 27, 2005)
A county's manifest objective may be dispositive for determining whether a
display of the Ten Commandments in courthouses violates the Establishment
Clause.
To read the full text of this opinion, go to:
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/03-1693.html
************************************************************************************
Van Orden v. Perry, No. 03-1500 (U.S.S.C. June 27, 2005)
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment allows the display of a
monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments on the Texas State Capitol
grounds.
To read the full text of this opinion, go to:
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/03-1500.html
*************************************************************************************
The Supreme Court Draws the Correct Ten Commandments Line:
Why the Texas Display Was Constitutional, and the Kentucky Display Was Not
By MARCI HAMILTON
hamilton02@aol.com
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20050629.html
**************************************************************
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: "The Fool"
Title: Re: Appeals Ct: "separation" is extra-constitutional and tiresome	27 Dec 2005 03:37:03 PM

wrote:

:|> >The Fool wrote:
:|> >> The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals just ruled that the Ten Commandments
:|> >> can remain in a Kentucky courthouse, and, further, in the opinion they
:|> >> said...

"First, the ACLU makes repeated reference to "the separation of
church and state." This extra-constitutional construct has grown
tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation
between church and state. See Lynch, 465 U.S. at 673; Lemon, 403 U.S.
at 614; Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 312 (1952); Brown v. Gilmore,
258 F.3d 265, 274 (4th Cir. 2001); Stark v. Indep. Sch. Dist., No.
640., 123 F.3d 1068, 1076 (8th Cir. 1997); see also Capitol Square, 243
F.3d at 300 (dismissing strict separatism as "a notion that simply
perverts our history")."
.. . .

****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

Ken Clifton
christianjedi.com
christiancelebrity.com
somebodysaveme.com
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Appeals Ct: "separation" is extra-constitutional and tiresome	28 Dec 2005 10:30:21 AM

"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:

Let me educate you since you are in serious need of a education on such
matters as this:
(1) I have a copy of the case. I downloaded and printed out said case. I
have read over the case.
(2) This was a usual 3 judge panel of the 6th Circuit Court.
SUHRHEINRICH, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which BATCHELDER,
J., joined. RICE, D. J., concurred in the result only.
The above is very important since it says that only J. SUHRHEINRICH
..(Actually more than likely his clerk or clerks) wrote that section that
you are flaunting around. The other two judges only agreed to this, the
actual holding of the case:
the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
The other two judges did not agree with this
For the foregoing reasons,
only this
the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
(3) Legally speaking the only thing that is legally binding or legally
important is this the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
That other stuff, the so called rationale is dicta.
It can be used in arguments in other cases can even be quoted by other
courts in their rationale for a given opinion but it isn't law. It isn't
legally binding on anyone for anything. It wasn't and isn't the holding of
the case.
{4} We are talking about a legal principle, do you happen to have any idea
what a legal principle is?
A legal principle has all the characteristics of a rule of law (an
authoritative legal standard of general application requiring action or
forbearance used by courts and administrative tribunals as a norm in
deciding the legal significance of the particular facts presented in
individual cases), and, in addition, a principle: has a more fundamental
status in law then a rule, has a broader or more inclusive scope of reach
than a rule, may be used as a basis for creating rules and is sometimes
used by a judge to select which one of the two or more arguably applicable
rules should be applied in a particular case.
In out system of law, SOME fundamental principles are explicitly specified
in the Constitution of the United States, including:
The principle of due process
the principle of equal protection of the law
the principles of freedom of speech, press, assembly,
Other federal constitutional principles are derived from those which are
explicitly specified, etc
Other federal constitutional principles are derived from those which are
explicitly specified and then embodied in the case law of the U.S. Supreme
Court, including:
-- the principle that each person has a right of privacy, derived from the
first, fourth and other amendments
-- the principle that vague criminal statutes are a violation of due
process
Learning Legal Reasoning, Briefing, Analysis and Theory, Professor John
Delany, 9th Printing John Delany Publications, (August 1993) p 8-9
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Such things as Freedom of religion or religious freedom i. e. separation of
church and state, separation of powers, checks and balances are examples of
legal principles that were embodied in the U S Constitution. when it was
framed.
(5) J, SUHRHEINRICH or his clerk(s) or both don't know history very well.
They are playing semantic games and they really should know better.
Absolutes are seldom but I will make a somewhat absolute statement right
here and right now
There is no respected historian, no respected attorney, no respected judge,
Justice law school professor or scholar who can refute the following
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
and demonstrate with factual evidence that the legal principle or concept
of church state separation is not embodied in the original constitution and
further reinforced with the religious clauses of the BORs
What the above demonstrates is a valid accurate and pretty much unbroken
pedigree of recognition, acknowledgement and in some cases application of
the principle of church state from the Constitutional convention in
Philly to Everson v Bd of ed in 1947.
*****************************************************************
(6) There was a scholar who published the following book
Philip Hamburger. Separation of Church and State. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 2002. 492 pages. Notes, index. $45.00
(cloth), ISBN 0-674-00734-4.
Separation of Church and State
Philip Hamburger
Separation of Church and State jacket
In a powerful challenge to conventional wisdom, Philip Hamburger argues
that the separation of church and state has no historical foundation in the
First Amendment. The detailed evidence assembled here shows that
eighteenth-century Americans almost never invoked this principle. Although
Thomas Jefferson and others retrospectively claimed that the First
Amendment separated church and state, separation became part of American
constitutional law only much later.
----------------------------------------------------

Here are some comments about this book, one from me and another from
professor Marci Hamilton as well as a couple others
[excerpt from Professir Hamilton]
* Was Church/state Separation Part of the Original Constitution?: A
Review of Philip Hamburger's Provocative Recent Book on Separation's
History
Friday, Sep. 20, 2002
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/books/reviews/20020920_hamilton.html
An important point made in her article:
The Book's Value, and How It Might - and Should Not - Be Misused
[snip]
Hamburger's book also (but inadvertently) opens another, more
dangerous door. This is a scholarly book, and Professor Hamburger has
no apparent political agenda. But my fear is that those who are
hostile to the Establishment Clause will embrace the book for all the
wrong reasons - despite the fact that, on a fair reading, the book
simply does not support their view.
There are potent forces, currently dominant
[not so dominant. This is one area I strongly disagree with her on
buckeyeelo]
in this society, that would virtually unite church and state - by
increasing government financial support for religious institution, and
increasing religions' control of legislative agendas through lobbying
and political contributions. They may see this book as a handy tool.
Separation, they will argue, was not part of the original
Constitution, so there is no reason to honor it today; as long as
there is no formal state Church and no blatant religious persecution,
they may suggest, the U.S. is in full compliance with the
Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses. After all, they may point
out, there is no Separation Clause. Separation is only Thomas
Jefferson's metaphor, not the Constitution's.
The list of issues for those with the anti-separation agenda seems to
grow every day. Think of the numerous examples: state-funded vouchers
for private schools, "charitable choice," the Religious Freedom
Restoration Acts at both the federal and state level, the Religious
Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, Medicare funding
provisions that cover faith-healing, states' exemptions from parental
child neglect laws when medical care is withheld for religious
reasons, the too-short statutes of limitation governing child abuse by
clergy, and the endless list of government-financed school supplies
provided to religious schools. The list, sadly, could go on.
[snip]
This is an important book, but not an ideological one. If it is
appropriated for ideological purposes, that will be a great shame.
*******************************************************************************
[from me]
I don't know of anyone, at least not anyone of the three people I posted
excerpts from (Marci Hamilton, Douglas Laycock, Mark D. McGarvie) who
said Philip Hamburger had an agenda, nor that his book wasn't a important
book to be read by any and all.
However, his direction, his conclusions didn't tell the entire story
and accidently at least supported the Radical Religious right in their
claims that separation of church and state is a myth.
Hamburger claims that the 1st Amendment didn't create church state
separation. Actually, on that I agree with him. Church state
separation, the principle, was embodied in the unamended constitution.
To be more precise, Article IV end of third paragraph, directly. This
is the separation clause and then indirectly the entire unamended
constitution.
What the Religious clauses of the 3rd Amendment (today's 1st
Amendment) did was reinforce that which had been accomplished with
unamended constitution, which was to break the union between church
and state, religion and government.
**************************************************************************
There are two additional reviews to that book
Philip Hamburger. Separation of Church and State. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 2002. 492 pages. Notes, index. $45.00
(cloth), ISBN 0-674-00734-4.
Reviewed by: Mark D. McGarvie , Adjunct Professor of History,
University of Richmond, and Golieb Fellow in Legal History, New York
University School of Law, 2001-2002.
Published by: H-Law (March, 2003)
Was the Constitution Rewritten by Anti-Catholics? A New Approach to
the Church-State Controversy
http://www.h-net.msu.edu/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=180081052130058
******************************************************************************
The Many Mesages of Separation, Douglas Laycock, Separation of Church
and State, Phillip Hamburger The U of Chicago Law Review Vplume 70,
Fall 2003, #4 pp 1667-1701
(Yes I have the above Law Review article as well. I scanned an excerpt from
it)
**************************************************************
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: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: Appeals Ct: "separation" is extra-constitutional and tiresome	27 Dec 2005 07:28:33 PM

On 27 Dec 2005 13:37:03 -0800, "The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:

Yes, it does.
Read the frikking thing.
What do you imagine "shall pass no law respecting an establishment of
religion" means?
.

User: "Dana"
Title: Re: Appeals Ct: "separation" is extra-constitutional and tiresome	27 Dec 2005 07:39:09 PM

"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:afq3r1p91h3b7r1psmcqq12qf8hod8i01u@4ax.com...

On 27 Dec 2005 13:37:03 -0800, "The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:

Yes, it does.

Only in your dreams.
.

User: "Gregory Gadow"
Title: Re: Appeals Ct: "separation" is extra-constitutional and tiresome	28 Dec 2005 08:42:15 AM

"Christopher A. Lee" wrote:

On 27 Dec 2005 13:37:03 -0800, "The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:

Yes, it does.

Read the frikking thing.

What do you imagine "shall pass no law respecting an establishment of
religion" means?

It means to them exactly what it says: Shall pass no law respecting an
establishment of (any other) religion (than mine, which shall be mandated
for everyone who wants to be considered a citizen, under penalty of the
Inquisition.)
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking,
which leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy."
- Robert Anton Wilson
.

User: "The Fool"
Title: Re: Appeals Ct: "separation" is extra-constitutional and tiresome	27 Dec 2005 07:58:54 PM

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

On 27 Dec 2005 13:37:03 -0800, "The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:

Yes, it does.

Read the frikking thing.

What do you imagine "shall pass no law respecting an establishment of
religion" means?

You are not arguing with my words. The above words are the words of
the 6th Circuit Court's recent opinion.
Ken Clifton
christianjedi.com
christiancelebrity.com
somebodysaveme.com
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Appeals Ct: "separation" is extra-constitutional and tiresome	28 Dec 2005 11:19:13 AM

"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:

and what exactly do you think those words really mean?
Are they part of the holding? Hint: no.
Are they part of the majority, not really since it was a 3 judge panel and
only one judge actually wrote those words. The other two didn't go along
with him. The other two agreed on with the holding, not his rationale and
those words you refer to are part of his rationale, not part of the
holding.
See:
DECEMBER 20, 2005
-------------------------------------------------------
U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals
-------------------------------------------------------
Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Mercer County (12/20/05 - No. 03-5142)
Summary judgment in favor of county defendant in a First Amendment
Establishment Clause challenge to its courthouse display containing the Ten
Commandments is affirmed where the predominant purpose of the display is
secular and the display does not endorse religion.
To read the full text of this opinion, go to:[PDF File]
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/6th/035142p.pdf"
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/6th/035142p.pdf [PDF File]
(1) I have a copy of the case. I downloaded and printed out said case. I
have read over the case.
(2) This was a usual 3 judge panel of the 6th Circuit Court.
SUHRHEINRICH, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which BATCHELDER,
J., joined. RICE, D. J., concurred in the result only.
The above is very important since it says that only J. SUHRHEINRICH
..(Actually more than likely his clerk or clerks) wrote that section that
you are flaunting around. The other two judges only agreed to this, the
actual holding of the case:
the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
The other two judges did not agree with this
For the foregoing reasons,
only this
the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
(3) Legally speaking the only thing that is legally binding or legally
important is this the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
That other stuff, the so called rationale is dicta.
It can be used in arguments in other cases can even be quoted by other
courts in their rationale for a given opinion but it isn't law. It isn't
legally binding on anyone for anything. It wasn't and isn't the holding of
the case.
{4} We are talking about a legal principle, do you happen to have any idea
what a legal principle is?
A legal principle has all the characteristics of a rule of law (an
authoritative legal standard of general application requiring action or
forbearance used by courts and administrative tribunals as a norm in
deciding the legal significance of the particular facts presented in
individual cases), and, in addition, a principle: has a more fundamental
status in law then a rule, has a broader or more inclusive scope of reach
than a rule, may be used as a basis for creating rules and is sometimes
used by a judge to select which one of the two or more arguably applicable
rules should be applied in a particular case.
In out system of law, SOME fundamental principles are explicitly specified
in the Constitution of the United States, including:
The principle of due process
the principle of equal protection of the law
the principles of freedom of speech, press, assembly,
Other federal constitutional principles are derived from those which are
explicitly specified, etc
Other federal constitutional principles are derived from those which are
explicitly specified and then embodied in the case law of the U.S. Supreme
Court, including:
-- the principle that each person has a right of privacy, derived from the
first, fourth and other amendments
-- the principle that vague criminal statutes are a violation of due
process
Learning Legal Reasoning, Briefing, Analysis and Theory, Professor John
Delany, 9th Printing John Delany Publications, (August 1993) p 8-9
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Such things as Freedom of religion or religious freedom i. e. separation of
church and state, separation of powers, checks and balances are examples of
legal principles that were embodied in the U S Constitution. when it was
framed.
(5) J, SUHRHEINRICH or his clerk(s) or both don't know history very well.
They are playing semantic games and they really should know better.
Absolutes are seldom but I will make a somewhat absolute statement right
here and right now
There is no respected historian, no respected attorney, no respected judge,
Justice law school professor or scholar who can refute the following
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
and demonstrate with factual evidence that the legal principle or concept
of church state separation is not embodied in the original constitution and
further reinforced with the religious clauses of the BORs
What the above demonstrates is a valid accurate and pretty much unbroken
pedigree of recognition, acknowledgement and in some cases application of
the principle of church state from the Constitutional convention in
Philly to Everson v Bd of ed in 1947.
*****************************************************************
(6) There was a scholar who published the following book
Philip Hamburger. Separation of Church and State. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 2002. 492 pages. Notes, index. $45.00
(cloth), ISBN 0-674-00734-4.
Separation of Church and State
Philip Hamburger
Separation of Church and State jacket
In a powerful challenge to conventional wisdom, Philip Hamburger argues
that the separation of church and state has no historical foundation in the
First Amendment. The detailed evidence assembled here shows that
eighteenth-century Americans almost never invoked this principle. Although
Thomas Jefferson and others retrospectively claimed that the First
Amendment separated church and state, separation became part of American
constitutional law only much later.
----------------------------------------------------

Here are some comments about this book, one from me and another from
professor Marci Hamilton as well as a couple others
[excerpt from Professir Hamilton]
* Was Church/state Separation Part of the Original Constitution?: A
Review of Philip Hamburger's Provocative Recent Book on Separation's
History
Friday, Sep. 20, 2002
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/books/reviews/20020920_hamilton.html
An important point made in her article:
The Book's Value, and How It Might - and Should Not - Be Misused
[snip]
Hamburger's book also (but inadvertently) opens another, more
dangerous door. This is a scholarly book, and Professor Hamburger has
no apparent political agenda. But my fear is that those who are
hostile to the Establishment Clause will embrace the book for all the
wrong reasons - despite the fact that, on a fair reading, the book
simply does not support their view.
There are potent forces, currently dominant
[not so dominant. This is one area I strongly disagree with her on
buckeyeelo]
in this society, that would virtually unite church and state - by
increasing government financial support for religious institution, and
increasing religions' control of legislative agendas through lobbying
and political contributions. They may see this book as a handy tool.
Separation, they will argue, was not part of the original
Constitution, so there is no reason to honor it today; as long as
there is no formal state Church and no blatant religious persecution,
they may suggest, the U.S. is in full compliance with the
Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses. After all, they may point
out, there is no Separation Clause. Separation is only Thomas
Jefferson's metaphor, not the Constitution's.
The list of issues for those with the anti-separation agenda seems to
grow every day. Think of the numerous examples: state-funded vouchers
for private schools, "charitable choice," the Religious Freedom
Restoration Acts at both the federal and state level, the Religious
Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, Medicare funding
provisions that cover faith-healing, states' exemptions from parental
child neglect laws when medical care is withheld for religious
reasons, the too-short statutes of limitation governing child abuse by
clergy, and the endless list of government-financed school supplies
provided to religious schools. The list, sadly, could go on.
[snip]
This is an important book, but not an ideological one. If it is
appropriated for ideological purposes, that will be a great shame.
*******************************************************************************
[from me]
I don't know of anyone, at least not anyone of the three people I posted
excerpts from (Marci Hamilton, Douglas Laycock, Mark D. McGarvie) who
said Philip Hamburger had an agenda, nor that his book wasn't a important
book to be read by any and all.
However, his direction, his conclusions didn't tell the entire story
and accidently at least supported the Radical Religious right in their
claims that separation of church and state is a myth.
Hamburger claims that the 1st Amendment didn't create church state
separation. Actually, on that I agree with him. Church state
separation, the principle, was embodied in the unamended constitution.
To be more precise, Article IV end of third paragraph, directly. This
is the separation clause and then indirectly the entire unamended
constitution.
What the Religious clauses of the 3rd Amendment (today's 1st
Amendment) did was reinforce that which had been accomplished with
unamended constitution, which was to break the union between church
and state, religion and government.
**************************************************************************
There are two additional reviews to that book
Philip Hamburger. Separation of Church and State. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 2002. 492 pages. Notes, index. $45.00
(cloth), ISBN 0-674-00734-4.
Reviewed by: Mark D. McGarvie , Adjunct Professor of History,
University of Richmond, and Golieb Fellow in Legal History, New York
University School of Law, 2001-2002.
Published by: H-Law (March, 2003)
Was the Constitution Rewritten by Anti-Catholics? A New Approach to
the Church-State Controversy
http://www.h-net.msu.edu/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=180081052130058
******************************************************************************
The Many Mesages of Separation, Douglas Laycock, Separation of Church
and State, Phillip Hamburger The U of Chicago Law Review Vplume 70,
Fall 2003, #4 pp 1667-1701
(Yes I have the above Law Review article as well. I scanned an excerpt from
it)
**************************************************************
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: "The Ghost In The Machine"
Title: Re: Appeals Ct: "separation" is extra-constitutional and tiresome	27 Dec 2005 09:00:09 PM

In alt.atheism, Christopher A Lee
<calee@optonline.net>
wrote
on Tue, 27 Dec 2005 20:28:33 -0500
<afq3r1p91h3b7r1psmcqq12qf8hod8i01u@4ax.com>:

On 27 Dec 2005 13:37:03 -0800, "The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:

Yes, it does.

Read the frikking thing.

What do you imagine "shall pass no law respecting an establishment of
religion" means?

One could make the rather strange case that we can use
existing religions such as Roman Catholicism. (This would
work but for the Founding Fathers leaving writings that
strongly suggest that was not part of their intentions.)
For surely that would not be an establishment of a
religion, merely making the Government kowtow to an
existing one -- an issue that is just as bad, if not worse.
(Admittedly, the Church of England isn't exactly the most
powerful church anymore, if it ever was. But then, neither
is the monarchy. But we're not that far removed from
the Crusades in the 13th century, and the far closer --
and deadlier -- prosecution of the Jews in the early 1940's.)
One has to look slightly askance at things such as ID
in public schools -- ID in private schools is probably OK
but I'd have to study the issue; in any event one must
tread carefully here regarding such things as fraudulent
representation ("diploma mills"), restrictions on assembly
(a school, after all, is a grouping), and other such --
and faith-based initiatives, unless one allows all faiths
(Islam, Judiasm, and Wiccan among them).
And then there's the issue of whether churches should be
allowed to politick and required to pay taxes. So far,
we've not required the latter but there's been a fair amount
of the former...
--
#191,

It's still legal to go .sigless.
.

User: "Bob LeChevalier"
Title: Re: Appeals Ct: "separation" is extra-constitutional and tiresome	27 Dec 2005 03:23:01 AM

"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:

Bob LeChevalier wrote:

"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:

I guess no one thought they could deal with this, so they just ignored
it.

The Fool wrote:

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals just ruled that the Ten Commandments
can remain in a Kentucky courthouse, and, further, in the opinion they
said...

What's to say? It will go to the USSC which has ruled otherwise in
the past, and the USSC will overturn it unless Bush has succeeded in
packing the court, in which case it will stand.

You, of course, know the Supreme Court issued split rulings on the
issue last year,

You have a truly odd concept of "split". All the USSC rulings were
quite consistent in my book, not "split" at all. And not consistent
with denying that "separation of church and state" is a meaningful
constitutional concept.
lojbab
.

User: "The Fool"
Title: Re: Appeals Ct: "separation" is extra-constitutional and tiresome	27 Dec 2005 02:47:14 PM

Bob LeChevalier wrote:

"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:

Bob LeChevalier wrote:

"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:

I guess no one thought they could deal with this, so they just ignored
it.

The Fool wrote:

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals just ruled that the Ten Commandments
can remain in a Kentucky courthouse, and, further, in the opinion they
said...

What's to say? It will go to the USSC which has ruled otherwise in
the past, and the USSC will overturn it unless Bush has succeeded in
packing the court, in which case it will stand.

You, of course, know the Supreme Court issued split rulings on the
issue last year,

When the Supreme Court issued the ruling you are referring to last
year, it was issued at the EXACT same time as a ruling for another
state that took the exact opposite position, and you know it. Careful,
the jury is watching you.
Ken Clifton
christianjedi.com
christiancelebrity.com
somebodysaveme.com
.

User: "Bob LeChevalier"
Title: Re: Appeals Ct: "separation" is extra-constitutional and tiresome	27 Dec 2005 03:18:19 PM

"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:

Bob LeChevalier wrote:

"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:

Bob LeChevalier wrote:

"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:

I guess no one thought they could deal with this, so they just ignored
it.

The Fool wrote:

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals just ruled that the Ten Commandments
can remain in a Kentucky courthouse, and, further, in the opinion they
said...

What's to say? It will go to the USSC which has ruled otherwise in
the past, and the USSC will overturn it unless Bush has succeeded in
packing the court, in which case it will stand.

You, of course, know the Supreme Court issued split rulings on the
issue last year,

When the Supreme Court issued the ruling you are referring to last
year, it was issued at the EXACT same time as a ruling for another
state that took the exact opposite position, and you know it.

The ruling for the other state was NOT the "exact opposite position",
as you would know if you had actually read the decisions. The two
decisions were quite consistent with each other, and not "opposite" at
all. One case had crossed over the line in the sand, while the other
case had managed to not cross the line.
This new case similarly involves one side working carefully to avoid
crossing the line. The circuit court thinks they succeeded in
avoiding the line-crossing, and there would be little controversy
except for the court's unwarranted blast against the concept of a
"wall of separation" that explicitly contradicts the Everson decision.
It turns out that the entire majority did not subscribe to the opinion
that made those remarks; one judge wrote a separate opinion supporting
the decision but not the flamage, which may make the latter moot.
Thus at least one columnist thinks that the USSC won't even take the
case; there has to actually be something at issue.
lojbab
.

User: "The Fool"
Title: Re: Appeals Ct: "separation" is extra-constitutional and tiresome	27 Dec 2005 03:52:15 PM

Bob LeChevalier wrote:

"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:

Bob LeChevalier wrote:

"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:

Bob LeChevalier wrote:

"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:

I guess no one thought they could deal with this, so they just ignored
it.

The Fool wrote:

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals just ruled that the Ten Commandments
can remain in a Kentucky courthouse, and, further, in the opinion they
said...

What's to say? It will go to the USSC which has ruled otherwise in
the past, and the USSC will overturn it unless Bush has succeeded in
packing the court, in which case it will stand.

You, of course, know the Supreme Court issued split rulings on the
issue last year,

When the Supreme Court issued the ruling you are referring to last
year, it was issued at the EXACT same time as a ruling for another
state that took the exact opposite position, and you know it.

The ruling for the other state was NOT the "exact opposite position",
as you would know if you had actually read the decisions. The two
decisions were quite consistent with each other, and not "opposite" at
all. One case had crossed over the line in the sand, while the other
case had managed to not cross the line.

This new case similarly involves one side working carefully to avoid
crossing the line. The circuit court thinks they succeeded in
avoiding the line-crossing, and there would be little controversy
except for the court's unwarranted blast against the concept of a
"wall of separation" that explicitly contradicts the Everson decision.
It turns out that the entire majority did not subscribe to the opinion
that made those remarks; one judge wrote a separate opinion supporting
the decision but not the flamage, which may make the latter moot.

Thus at least one columnist thinks that the USSC won't even take the
case; there has to actually be something at issue.

lojbab

I never actually think you will be honest. That's why I ask these
questions of you. Here, you prove me right again. You claim that
there SC is entirely on the side of being against Ten commandments
displays. I say you are forgetting something intentionally. You deny
it. I point it out more clearly. You admit it. Thanks for the
admission. It will likely be a hot day in your hell before you admit
you were ever wrong.
Ken Clifton
christianjedi.com
christiancelebrity.com
somebodysaveme.com
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Appeals Ct: "separation" is extra-constitutional and tiresome	28 Dec 2005 11:23:57 AM

"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:

:|
:|I never actually think you will be honest. That's why I ask these
:|questions of you. Here, you prove me right again. You claim that
:|there SC is entirely on the side of being against Ten commandments
:|displays. I say you are forgetting something intentionally. You deny
:|it. I point it out more clearly. You admit it. Thanks for the
:|admission. It will likely be a hot day in your hell before you admit
:|you were ever wrong.

You might want to actually read the cases and then you might find the
following to be of interest but I doubt you really wish to know
JUNE 27, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------
U S Supreme Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
McCreary County v. ACLU, No. 03-1693 (U.S.S.C. June 27, 2005)
A county's manifest objective may be dispositive for determining whether a
display of the Ten Commandments in courthouses violates the Establishment
Clause.
To read the full text of this opinion, go to:
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/03-1693.html
************************************************************************************
Van Orden v. Perry, No. 03-1500 (U.S.S.C. June 27, 2005)
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment allows the display of a
monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments on the Texas State Capitol
grounds.
To read the full text of this opinion, go to:
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/03-1500.html
*************************************************************************************
The Supreme Court Draws the Correct Ten Commandments Line:
Why the Texas Display Was Constitutional, and the Kentucky Display Was Not
By MARCI HAMILTON
hamilton02@aol.com
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20050629.html
***************************************************************************
DECEMBER 20, 2005
-------------------------------------------------------
U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals
-------------------------------------------------------
Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Mercer County (12/20/05 - No. 03-5142)
Summary judgment in favor of county defendant in a First Amendment
Establishment Clause challenge to its courthouse display containing the Ten
Commandments is affirmed where the predominant purpose of the display is
secular and the display does not endorse religion.
To read the full text of this opinion, go to:[PDF File]
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/6th/035142p.pdf"
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/6th/035142p.pdf [PDF File]
**************************************************************
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: Appeals Ct: "separation" is extra-constitutional and tiresome	27 Dec 2005 11:06:35 PM

"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:

When the Supreme Court issued the ruling you are referring to last
year, it was issued at the EXACT same time as a ruling for another
state that took the exact opposite position, and you know it.

The ruling for the other state was NOT the "exact opposite position",
as you would know if you had actually read the decisions. The two
decisions were quite consistent with each other, and not "opposite" at
all. One case had crossed over the line in the sand, while the other
case had managed to not cross the line.

This new case similarly involves one side working carefully to avoid
crossing the line. The circuit court thinks they succeeded in
avoiding the line-crossing, and there would be little controversy
except for the court's unwarranted blast against the concept of a
"wall of separation" that explicitly contradicts the Everson decision.
It turns out that the entire majority did not subscribe to the opinion
that made those remarks; one judge wrote a separate opinion supporting
the decision but not the flamage, which may make the latter moot.

Thus at least one columnist thinks that the USSC won't even take the
case; there has to actually be something at issue.

Where did I say that?
I originally opined that it would go to the USSC and they would
overturn it. I later reported that I read a columnist who said that
it probably wouldn't be taken by the court. The issue that made the
news, the denouncing of the wall of separation and the ACLU, turns out
to have not been agreed to by a majority of the court - they agreed on
the decision but not the reasoning.

I say you are forgetting something intentionally.

I say you are wrong.

You deny it. I point it out more clearly. You admit it.

I have admitted NOTHING that *you* "pointed out". I use my own
sources, and I habitually check what I say before I post. I pretty
much assume that anything you say will be wrong, because that is your
record on this newsgroup.

Thanks for the
admission. It will likely be a hot day in your hell before you admit
you were ever wrong.

I have admitted being wrong before, when I've been wrong. I don't
make a habit of being wrong, like you do. (And you don't exactly have
a record of admitting your regular and numerous mistakes, BTW, so you
should move out of your glass house before throwing stones.)
lojbab
.

User: "The Fool"
Title: Re: Appeals Ct: "separation" is extra-constitutional and tiresome	28 Dec 2005 01:27:02 AM

Bob LeChevalier wrote:

"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:

When the Supreme Court issued the ruling you are referring to last
year, it was issued at the EXACT same time as a ruling for another
state that took the exact opposite position, and you know it.

The ruling for the other state was NOT the "exact opposite position",
as you would know if you had actually read the decisions. The two
decisions were quite consistent with each other, and not "opposite" at
all. One case had crossed over the line in the sand, while the other
case had managed to not cross the line.

This new case similarly involves one side working carefully to avoid
crossing the line. The circuit court thinks they succeeded in
avoiding the line-crossing, and there would be little controversy
except for the court's unwarranted blast against the concept of a
"wall of separation" that explicitly contradicts the Everson decision.
It turns out that the entire majority did not subscribe to the opinion
that made those remarks; one judge wrote a separate opinion supporting
the decision but not the flamage, which may make the latter moot.

Thus at least one columnist thinks that the USSC won't even take the
case; there has to actually be something at issue.

Where did I say that?

I originally opined that it would go to the USSC and they would
overturn it. I later reported that I read a columnist who said that
it probably wouldn't be taken by the court. The issue that made the
news, the denouncing of the wall of separation and the ACLU, turns out
to have not been agreed to by a majority of the court - they agreed on
the decision but not the reasoning.

I say you are forgetting something intentionally.

I say you are wrong.

You deny it. I point it out more clearly. You admit it.

Thanks for the
admission. It will likely be a hot day in your hell before you admit
you were ever wrong.

In years of discussion with you, I've NEVER seen you admit wrong...not
once. In fact, on another thread, right now you are caught lying to
me, yet you absolutely refuse to admit it, even with complete evidence
that it is so.
Ken Clifton
christianjedi.com
christiancelebrity.com
somebodysaveme.com
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Appeals Ct: "separation" is extra-constitutional and tiresome	28 Dec 2005 11:29:41 AM

"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:

You should practice what you preach
"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:

:|These words of Jefferson are important to be remembered in our time...
:|
:|Mintues of the Board of Visitors, University of
:|Virginia, 1822-1825 - a Report to the President and Directors of the
:|Literary Fund. It was written by Thomas Jefferson as Rector of the
:|meeting. Also,
:|present in that meeting Thomas Jefferson (Rector), James Breckenridge,
:|Joseph C Cabell, John H. Cocke and James Madison.
:|
:|" It was not however to be understood that instruction in religious
:|opinions and duties was meant to be precluded by the public
:|authorities, as indifferent to the interests of Society. On the
:|contrary, the relations which exist between man and his maker, and the
:|duties resulting from those relations are the most interesting and
:|important to every human being, and the most incumbent on his study
:|and investigation. The want of instruction in the various creeds of
:|religious faith existing among our citizens presents therefore a chasm
:|in the general institution of useful Sciences."

I see you are back to posting your misleading propaganda again
SEE:
The Avalon Project at Yale Law School
From the Minutes of the Board of Visitors, University of Virginia, 1822 -
1825
Report to the President and Directors of the Literary Fund (extract)
October 7, 1822
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/jeffrep3.htm
*********************************************************************************
SEE:
ITEM # 3 (below)
JEFFERSON ON EDUCATION AND RELIGION:
for the rest of the story that the misleading propagandist (the Fool
-though the liar is a better name) didn't bother to include or tell the
readers
He posted this misleading information after he was informed of all the
facts in a reply by me to one of his posts on Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005
10:17:45 -0400
*******************************************************************

Oct 20, 9:17 am show options
Newsgroups: alt.politics.liberalism, alt.politics.usa.constitution,
alt.politics.usa.republican, alt.education, alt.religion.christian
From:

- Find messages by this author
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 10:17:45 -0400
Local: Thurs, Oct 20 2005 9:17 am
Subject: Re: Let's break down wall between church, state
"The Fool" <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:

:|
:|

wrote:
:|> >:| Further, it
:|> >:|should be noted, that a teacher would be sued for saying in their
:|> >:|official capacity what Jefferson wrote here in this same letter in his
:|> >:|official capacity.
:|>
:|> Further it should be noted
:|> (1) Jefferson was totally against combining religion and schools
:|>
:|
:|I posted this on the groups years ago, so it's time to bring it out
:|again. Read and be educated, because your knowledge of Jefferson is
:|obviously flawed...
:|

FALSE

:|
:|
:|Consider this from the Mintues of the Board of Visitors, University of
:|Virginia, 1822-1825 - a Report to the President and Directors of the
:|Literary Fund.
:|
:|It was WRITTEN BY Thomas Jefferson as Rector of the meeting. Also,
:|present in that meeting Thomas Jefferson (Rector), James Breckenridge,
:|Joseph C Cabell, John H. Cocke and James Madison.
:|
:|The summary of the meeting shows them in agreement that religion
:|should be taught on the campus alongside the other buildings. The
:|students would have the right and ability to opt to be instructed in
:|those buildings on campus. This is equal to the concept of teaching
:|creationism as an optional elective class. There would be no
:|constitutional problem with that, according to these founders. Here
:|is their words on it.
:|

Gee dude, You forgot to include the words
but here:
MY TURN
EVIDENCE
ITEM # 1
Thomas Jefferson supported Bible reading in school; this is proven
by his service as the first president of the Washington, D.C. public
schools, which used the Bible and Watt's Hymns as textbooks for reading.
(The aove is false as you will see from the following URL)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/arg6.htm
********************************************************************************
ITEM # 2
Historical Data Against "Vouchers"
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/vouchist.htm
There is info at the above regarding UVA
*******************************************************************************
ITEM # 3
JEFFERSON ON EDUCATION AND RELIGION:
A summation of Jefferson's views on education and religion by Leonard W.
Levy can be found at the following:
Jefferson, Religion, and the Public Schools.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/jeffschl.htm
Jefferson, Religion, and the Public Schools.
This extract is taken from Leonard Levy's book, Jefferson and Civil
Liberties: The Darker Side, pp. 8 - 15, footnotes pp. 188 - 189.
Jefferson's consistency in applying the principle of the separation
of church and state was also evident in the field of education. It has been
contended that he advocated the use of public funds in Virginia for a
school of theology for the training of clergymen; that he approved of
elaborate arrangements for the students of private theological schools to
share the facilities of the University of Virginia; that he recommended
that a room in the university be used for worship; and that he did not
protest against the use by Virginia of tax monies on behalf of religious
education. It has been contended, in other words, that his principle of
total separation was not put into practice. (15)
In matters of education, however, Jefferson was a complete
secularist, never deviating in any significant degree. In 1778 he
submitted, in a Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge, a
comprehensive plan for public education at the primary and secondary
levels.(16) Religious instruction was completely absent from the proposed
curriculum at a time when it was a prominent feature in schools everywhere
else. The omission was deliberate; Jefferson wrote in his Notes on the
State of Virginia: "Instead therefore of putting the Bible and Testament
into the hands of the children, at an age when their judgments are not
sufficiently matured for religious enquiries, their memories may here be
stored with the most useful facts from Grecian, Roman, European and
American history."(17) Religion was also conspicuous by its absence from
Jefferson's plan of 1817; his Bill for Establishing a System of Public
Education enumerated only secular subjects. In an effort to eliminate
possible religious influence in the public schools, Jefferson specified
that ministers should not serve as "visitors" or supervisors, and provided
that "no religious reading, instruction or exercise, shall be prescribed or
practised" in violation of the tenets of any sect or denomination.(18)
Clearly, Jefferson opposed the use of public funds for the teaching of
religion in the public schools.
Jefferson's first proposal on higher education came in 1779. His Bill
for the Amending of the Constitution of the College of William and Mary
stated that the college consisted of "one school of sacred theology, with
two professorships therein, to wit, one for teaching the Hebrew tongue, and
expounding the holy scriptures; and the other for explaining the
commonplaces of divinity, and controversies with heretics." There were six
other professorships divided among a school of philosophy, one of classical
languages, and another for teaching Indians reading, writing, and "the
catechism and the principles of the Christian religion." Jefferson proposed
to abolish both the school of theology with its professorships of religion
and the school for teaching Indians. In place of the school for Indians he
proposed that a missionary be selected by a newly constituted faculty who
would not teach religion but investigate Indian "laws, customs, religions,
traditions, and more particularly their languages." Jefferson's missionary
was to be an anthropologist charged with reporting his findings to the
faculty and preserving his reports in the college library. In place of the
school of theology and the professorships of religion, Jefferson proposed
simply a professorship "of moral philosophy" and another "of history, civil
and ecclesiastical."'(19)
Jefferson's proposed bill failed because of Episcopalian opposition.
However, in the same year, 1779, he and Madison as visitors of the college
instituted such changes as could be made by executive authority without
legislative approval. In 1821 he summarized the changes by writing: "When I
was a visitor, in 1779 I got the two professorships of Divinity ... put
down, and others of: law and police, of medicine, anatomy, and chemistry,
and of modern languages substituted."(20) A comparable statement appeared
in his Notes on the State of Virginia where he remarked that the school of
divinity was "excluded."(21)
Jefferson was never satisfied with the education offered by the
College of William and Mary. Failing to achieve adequate reform of the
college, he turned to the establishment of a new state university. He also
attempted in 1814 to transform Albemarle Academy, a small private school.
He wanted an enlarged institution, offering instruction from the primary
grades through college and post-graduate training, that would be supported
in part by public funds. At no point in the entire curriculum before the
professional level was there any provision for religious education.
However, one of the "professional schools" was to be devoted to "Theology
and Ecclesiastical History," to which would come the "ecclesiastic" as
would the "lawyer to the school of law."(22) Here is an inconsistency,
indicating Jefferson's support of the use of tax monies on behalf of
religious education, although only at the graduate level. It is not
irrelevant to stress, however, that Albemarle was privately established and
endowed, though it was to be aided by public funds. More to the point is
the fact that never again, after the failure of this proposal, did
Jefferson renew it.
In 1818, for instance, his academic plan for the newly authorized
state university included ten professorships and thirty-four subjects, none
of them relating to religion. This curriculum, which was adopted, was laid
out in a report, written by Jefferson as chairman of the commissioners for
the University of Virginia, which stated: "In conformity with the
principles of our Constitution, which places all sects of religion on an
equal footing... we have proposed no professor of divinity ... Proceeding
thus far without offence to the Constitution, we have thought it proper at
this point to leave every sect to provide, as they think fittest, the means
of further instruction in their own peculiar tenets." The report also
stated: "It is supposed probable, that a building ... may be called for in
time, in which may be rooms for religious worship ... for public
examinations, for a library."(23) The very conditional phrasing of this
sentence suggests that Jefferson was seeking to fend off an anticipated
barrage of criticism against the university as a "godless" institution. In
fact he was under constant pressure from church groups to make suitable
provision for theological training and religious worship at the university.
The "supposed probable" room which might in time be a place for worship was
a concession to those, who, as Jefferson reported in a letter to Dr. Thomas
Cooper, used the absence of a professorship of divinity to spread the idea
that the university was "not merely of no religion, but against all
religion."(24)
Opposition to the secular character of the university resulted in a
postponement of instruction, forcing additional concessions to religious
interests. In 1822 Jefferson, as rector of the university, and the Board
of Visitors, among them Madison, proposed in the most reluctant language to
accept a suggestion "by some pious individuals... to establish their
religious schools on the confines of the University, so as to give their
students ready and convenient access and attendance on the scientific
lectures of the University." This report noted also that the religious
schools would offer places where regular students of the university could
worship as each other." The report concluded that 'if the legislature
questioned "what here is suggested, the idea will be relinquished on any
surmise of disapprobation which they might think proper to express."(25)
The legislature did not, however, take the eager hint to scrap the plan
which involved no public expense.
Jefferson explained that in order to silence the calumny that the
university was atheistic, "In our annual report to the legislature, after
stating the constitutional reasons against a public establishment of any
religious instruction, we suggest the expediency of encouraging the
different religious sects to establish, each for itself, a professorship of
their own tenets, on the confines of the University.'(26) In 1824, shortly
before the first classes, Jefferson and the Board of Visitors adopted
formal regulations which provided that the "religious sects of this State"
might "establish within, or adjacent to, the precincts of the University,
schools for instruction in the religion of their own sect." Students of the
university were "free, and expected to attend religious worship" at the
"establishment" of their choice on condition that they did so in the
mornings before classes, which began at 7:30 A.M. The same regulations also
provided for the use of one of the university's rooms for worship as well
as for other purposes, although the students were enjoined by the
regulation of the previous paragraph to attend services in the theological
seminaries surrounding the university."(27)
No part of the regular school day was set aside for religious
worship. Possibly the proposal that a room belonging to the university be
used for worship was intended originally as a makeshift arrangement until
the various sects established their own schools of theology. None in fact
did so for several decades, and Jefferson did not permit the room belonging
to the university to be used for religious purposes. In 1825 he rejected a
proposal to hold Sunday services on university property. The Board of
Visitors, he wrote, had already turned down an application to permit a
sermon to be preached in one of the rooms on the ground that "the buildings
of the Univ. belong to the state, that they were erected for the purposes
of an Univ., and that the Visitors, to whose care they are commd [commanded
or committed] for those purposes, have no right to permit their application
to any other." His position was that the legislature had failed to sanction
a proposal to use university facilities for worship and that, consequently,
an alternative plan had been adopted "superseding the Ist idea of
permitting a room in the Rotunda to be used for religious worship."(28) The
alternative plan was the one permitting the different sects to establish
their own divinity schools, without public aid, independently of the
university. The university did not even appoint a chaplain while Jefferson
was its rector. "At a time when, in most colleges and universities of the
country, ministers were presidents and common members of boards of control,
daily chapel attendance was compulsory, courses in religion were required,
and professors of theology and doctors of divinity had a prominent place on
the faculties, the University of Virginia stood out sharply in contrast
with its loyalty to the principle of separation of church and state."(29)
Jefferson cared very deeply about religious liberty. Diligent study
and thought had given him a systematic theory, the most advanced of his
age, and he put it into practice. His position was clearly defined,
publicly stated, and vigorously defended. Although it exposed him to
abusive criticism he carried on his fight for separation of church and
state, and for the free exercise of religion, throughout his long public
career without significant contradictions. In sum his thought on religious
liberty was profoundly libertarian, and his actions suited his thought.
------------
l3. Edward S. Corwin, "The Supreme Court as National School Board,"
Law and Contemporary Problems, 14:14 (Winter 1949).
14. Jefferron to Levi Lincoln, Jan. 1, 1802, in Lipscomb. X, 305.
15. See, for example, O'Neill, pp. 76-77, 205-206.
16. Boyd, II, 526-535.
17. Notes on Virginia, ed. by Peden, p. 147.
18. Lipscomb, XVII, 425.
19. Boyd, II, 535-542.
20. Jefferson to Joseph C. Cabell, Feb. 22, 1811, in Nathaniel F.
Cabell, ed., Early History of the University of Virginia (Richmond, 1856),
p. 207.
21. Notes on Virginia, ed. by Peden, p. 151.
22. Jefferson to Peter Carr, Sept. 7, 1814, in Lipscomb, XIX,
211-221. See also Roy J. Honeywell, The Educational Work of Thomas
Jefferson (Cambridge, Mass., 1931), pp. '5-'6. 39-42; the letter to Carr is
reprinted in Appendix E.
23. "Report of the Commissioners appointed to fix the site of the
University of Virginia," in Honeywell, Educational Work of Jefferson,
Appendix J, pp. 256, 249.
24. Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, Nov. 2, 1822. in Lipscomb, XV, 405.
25. Minutes of the Board of Visitors of the University of Virginia,
Oct. 7, 1822, in ibid., XIX. 414-416.
26. Jefferson to Cooper, Nov. 2, 1822, in ibid., XV, 405
27. Minutes of the Board of Visitors of the University of Virginia,
Oct. 4, 1824, in ibid., XIX, 449.
28. Jefferson to A. S. Brockenbrough, April 21. 1825, quoted in R.
Freeman Butts, The American Tradition in Religion and Education (Boston.
1950), p. 129, citing Jefferson Papers, Library of Congress, vol. 229, fol.
40962.
29. Ibid., 130.
***************************************************************************************
ITEM # 4
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian/msg/9b4fdcbcf4a...
Your shorter link is: http://makeashorterlink.com/?V5603640C

Oct 9, 11:28 am
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian, alt.politics.democrats.d,
alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.politics.liberalism,
alt.society.liberalism, alt.education, alt.atheism
From:

- Find messages by this author
Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 11:28:25 -0400
Local: Sun, Oct 9 2005 11:28 am
Subject: Re: Keep religious theory out of class
"fred" <clar...@gmail.com> wrote:

:|
:|

wrote:
:|> "fred" <clar...@gmail.com> wrote:
:|>
:|> >:|

wrote:
:|> >:|> http://ydr.com/story/op-ed/87727/
:|> >:|>
:|> >:|> Keep religious theory out of class
:|> >:|> THE REV. BARRY W. LYNN
:|> >:|> Sunday, October 2, 2005
:|> >:|>
:|> >:|>
:|> >:|> "Intelligent design" should not be taught in public school science classes
:|> >:|> because it violates the Constitution, undercuts America's commitment to
:|> >:|> diversity and jeopardizes our children's future.
:|> >:|
:|> >:|Beware of generalizations like "because it violates the Constitution".
:|> >:|This bottom line is that people who attack our freedom of religious
:|> >:|expression often can't point to anything specific in the Constitution
:|> >:|to prove that the Constitution is being violated. They have to resort
:|> >:|to strawman generalizations to pull the wool over everybody's eyes.
:|> >:|
:|> >:|The bottom line is that an examination of the 1st, 10th and 14th
:|> >:|Amendments will show you that the 14th Amendment prohibits the states
:|> >:|from using their power to legislate religion to abridge our personal
:|> >:|federal rights as US citizens. So the states do have the
:|> >:|constitutional power to authorize public schools to lead classroom
:|> >:|discussions on issues like the pros and cons of evolution, creationism
:|> >:|and irreducible complexity, for example. However, I disagree with
:|> >:|Jefferson that religion classes should be mandatory:
:|>
:|> LOL, Jefferson believed the opposite. You just got exposed again for your
:|> dishonesty
:|
:|If you are talking about the line below which starts with, "No
:|religious reading," then please read in carefully. Jefferson is not
:|saying that religion cannot be taught in schools.

No troll I am talking about Jefferson's over all views about education and
religion
You know. all fhe the following you didn't bother to look over.
BTW, since you singled this one out let me do it first:
This was a reply to Barclay but will work here since you and him are clones
of each other basically:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ahem, he meant exactly what he said.
"No religious reading, instruction or exercise, shall be prescribed or
practiced [in the elementary schools] inconsistent with the tenets of
any religious sect or denomination." --Thomas Jefferson: Elementary
School Act, 1817. ME 17:425
QUERY XIV
The Administration of Justice and the Description of the
Laws?
To establish religious freedom on the broadest bottom.
[pp 236-237]
[EMPHASIS ADDED]
Another object of the revisal is to diffuse knowledge more
generally through the mass of the people. . . The first stage of this
education being the schools of the hundreds, wherein the great mass of the
people will receive their instruction, the principal foundations of future
order will be laid here. INSTEAD, THEREFORE, OF PUTTING THE
BIBLE AND TESTAMENT INTO THE HANDS OF THE CHILDREN AT
AN AGE WHEN THEIR JUDGMENTS ARE NOT SUFFICIENTLY
MATURED FOR RELIGIOUS INQUIRIES, THEIR MEMORIES MAY
HERE BE STORED WITH THE MOST USEFUL FACTS FROM
GRECIAN, ROMAN, EUROPEAN AND AMERICAN HISTORY. . .
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Thomas Jefferson's Notes on Virginia. The Life and
Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson, edited by Adrienne Koch and William
Peden. Random House, New York, (1993) pp 243-246)
[babclay said ]

So much for your claims that you follow proper historical methodology. It
is NOT proper historical methodology to completely ignore the primary
source material that is most immediately applicable to a particular issue
and focus entirely on less directly >applicable material.

Hehehehehehe Nice try but no cigar.
The two quotes above are PRIMARY SOURCE
This quote
"No religious reading, instruction or exercise, shall be prescribed or
practiced [in the elementary schools] inconsistent with the tenets of
any religious sect or denomination." --Thomas Jefferson: Elementary
School Act, 1817. ME 17:425
which is also pron]mary source requires a certain understanding of the
period (known today as the history of the period)
"No religious reading, instruction or exercise, shall be prescribed or
practiced inconsistent with the tenets of any religious sect or
denomination. "
There were approx 20 religions, sects, denomination etc at that time.
perhaps that many, perhaps not that many in Virginia. However, it might be
beyond your comprehension today, but those religions, sects, denominations
did not get along. People were put in jail deprived of their civil rights,
banned etc for being a member of the "wrong" religion, sect or
denomination.
THERE COULD HAVE BEEN NO RELIGIOUS READING, INSTRUCTION
OR EXERCISE THAT COULD HAVE BEEN PRESCRIBED OR PRACTICED
THAT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INCONSISTENT WITH SOME RELIGION, SECT OR
DENOMINATION THAT EXISTED AT THAT TIME. Thus under his Elementary
School Act, 1817. there could have been "No religious reading, instruction
or exercise, shall be prescribed or practiced. . . " in any elementary
school.
"No religious reading, instruction or exercise, shall be prescribed or
practiced [in the elementary schools] inconsistent with the tenets of
any religious sect or denomination." --Thomas Jefferson: Elementary
School Act, 1817. ME 17:425
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUERY XIV
The Administration of Justice and the Description of the
Laws?
To establish religious freedom on the broadest bottom.
[pp 236-237]
[EMPHASIS ADDED]
Another object of the revisal is to diffuse knowledge more
generally through the mass of the people. . . The first stage of this
education being the schools of the hundreds, wherein the great mass of the
people will receive their instruction, the principal foundations of future
order will be laid here. INSTEAD, THEREFORE, OF PUTTING THE
BIBLE AND TESTAMENT INTO THE HANDS OF THE CHILDREN AT
AN AGE WHEN THEIR JUDGMENTS ARE NOT SUFFICIENTLY
MATURED FOR RELIGIOUS INQUIRIES, THEIR MEMORIES MAY
HERE BE STORED WITH THE MOST USEFUL FACTS FROM
GRECIAN, ROMAN, EUROPEAN AND AMERICAN HISTORY. . .
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Thomas Jefferson's Notes on Virginia. The Life and
Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson, edited by Adrienne Koch and William
Peden. Random House, New York, (1993) pp 243-246)
*****************************************************************
[barclay said]

:|Keep in mind that in between Jefferson's 1778 proposal and his 1817
:|proposal, almost forty years had passed. He was in his 30's when he wrote
:|the former proposal, and in his 70's at the time of the second. People's
:|thinking can change during that much time, both in their principles and,
:|probably more importantly in Jefferson's case here, in their willingness to