| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
09 Feb 2006 02:58:06 PM |
| Object: |
Basis of Church-State Relations Part 2 |
THE BASIS OF CHURCH-STATE RELATIONS PART 2
Section 1. STATE JURISDICTION
It will be noticed that these provisions, as well as the guarantee of
religious freedom in the Bill of Rights,3 leave each of the original states
free to legislate as it will in such matters as education and religion, as
long as "a Republican Form of Government" is maintained. The Constitution's
two references to religion—in the last clause of Article VI of the original
document. and in Article I of the Bill of Rights—were originally understood
as binding only in territory, or among officials, under Federal
jurisdiction. This condition continued to be legally true until the
adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment at the close of the Civil War provided
a basis on which the religious-freedom guarantee was interpreted by the
Supreme Court as also applicable in the states.' But the influence of the
ideals creating and underlying the Federal Constitution were so
great, and its implications so clear, that long before this historic
interpretation by the court every state had, as we have seen, adopted the
principle of Church-State separation and religious freedom.
Church and State in the United States . Volume I I I, Anson Phelps Stokes,
D.D. LL.D, Harper & Brothers, p. 442-43 (1950)
***************************************************************
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 US 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)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Church-State Relations Part 2 |
09 Feb 2006 09:08:50 PM |
|
|
wrote:
THE BASIS OF CHURCH-STATE RELATIONS PART 2
Section 1. STATE JURISDICTION
It will be noticed that these provisions, as well as the guarantee of
religious freedom in the Bill of Rights,3 leave each of the original stat=
es
free to legislate as it will in such matters as education and religion, as
long as "a Republican Form of Government" is maintained. The Constitution=
's
two references to religion-in the last clause of Article VI of the origin=
al
document. and in Article I of the Bill of Rights-were originally understo=
od
as binding only in territory, or among officials, under Federal
jurisdiction. This condition continued to be legally true until the
adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment at the close of the Civil War provid=
ed
a basis on which the religious-freedom guarantee was interpreted by the
Supreme Court as also applicable in the states.' But the influence of the
ideals creating and underlying the Federal Constitution were so
great, and its implications so clear, that long before this historic
interpretation by the court every state had, as we have seen, adopted the
principle of Church-State separation and religious freedom.
Church and State in the United States . Volume I I I, Anson Phelps Stoke=
s,
D.D. LL.D, Harper & Brothers, p. 442-43 (1950)
The above information about the 14th Amendment is an outright lie.
Corrupt Justices twisted the reasonable interpretation of the 14 to rob
the states of their power to legislate religion. Consider the
following:
The original States had the power to legislate religion before the
federal government even existed. When the States established the
federal government and it's Constitution, they reserved the power to
legislate religion uniquely for the States as evidenced by the 10th
Amendment; the 10th Amendment automatically reserved this power for the
States since the 1st Amendment prohibited the power to legislate
religion only to Congress (federal government, aka United States):
"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."
The problem is that corrupt Supreme Court Justices mutinied against the
States (again, the SC was established by the States) with a treasonous
interpretation of the 14th Amendment in the Cantwell opinion:
"The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the
legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such
laws." --Cantwell v. State of Connecticut 1940.
The unconstitutional sleight-of-hand of the above statement is that the
14th Amendment did not magically appear in the Constitution overnight
for the States to start bowing down to; the States are the ones who
authorized the 14th Amendment! But the corrupt Cantwell Justices not
only twisted the 14th Amendment into an admission of incompentency,
thus totally ignoring the 5th Amendment protections of the people not
to be witnesses against themselves, but the Justices also accepted the
14th Amendment as an informal surrendering of the 10th Amendment
sovereign powers of the States. Indeed, the Justices didn't have the
guts to mention the 10th Amendment protected powers of the States in
the Cantwell opinion.
Fortunately, Justice Reed wrote a rare note about the 10th Amendment in
the Opelika opinion, a note which unifies the checks and balances
between the 1st, 10th and 14th Amendments:
"Conflicts in the exercise of rights arise and the conflicting forces
seek adjustments in the courts, as do these parties, claiming on the
one side the freedom of religion, speech and the press, guaranteed by
the Fourteenth Amendment, and on the other the right to employ the
sovereign power explicitly reserved to the State by the Tenth Amendment
to ensure orderly living without which constitutional guarantees of
civil liberties would be a mockery." --Justice Reed, Jones v. City of
Opelika 1942
But instead of balancing the 10th protected sovereign powers of the
States with 14th protected personal federal rights as they should,
corrupt, secular-minded Justices are now using the 14th as an excuse to
unconstitutionally force the 1st A's prohibitions of specific powers on
Congress onto the States. Otherwise, the States have the
constitutional power (10th) to authorize public schools to lead
non-mandatory (14th) classroom discussions about the pros and cons of
evolution, creationism and irreducible complexity, for example,
regardless if atheists, separationists, secular judges and the liberal
media are misleading the people to think that such things are
unconstitutional.
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS =B7 Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US 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. Eisne=
r,
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)
. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Church-State Relations Part 2 |
10 Feb 2006 08:59:09 AM |
|
|
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
:|buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
:|> THE BASIS OF CHURCH-STATE RELATIONS PART 2
:|>
:|>
:|> Section 1. STATE JURISDICTION
:|>
:|> It will be noticed that these provisions, as well as the guarantee of
:|> religious freedom in the Bill of Rights,3 leave each of the original states
:|> free to legislate as it will in such matters as education and religion, as
:|> long as "a Republican Form of Government" is maintained. The Constitution's
:|> two references to religion-in the last clause of Article VI of the original
:|> document. and in Article I of the Bill of Rights-were originally understood
:|> as binding only in territory, or among officials, under Federal
:|> jurisdiction. This condition continued to be legally true until the
:|> adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment at the close of the Civil War provided
:|> a basis on which the religious-freedom guarantee was interpreted by the
:|> Supreme Court as also applicable in the states.' But the influence of the
:|> ideals creating and underlying the Federal Constitution were so
:|> great, and its implications so clear, that long before this historic
:|> interpretation by the court every state had, as we have seen, adopted the
:|> principle of Church-State separation and religious freedom.
:|>
:|> Church and State in the United States . Volume I I I, Anson Phelps Stokes,
:|> D.D. LL.D, Harper & Brothers, p. 442-43 (1950)
:|
:|The above information about the 14th Amendment is an outright lie.
Sorry dude, but Anson Phelps Stokes had the credentials and the respect
that affords his work value.
Church and State in the united States
ANSON PHELPS STOKES
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
The Battle Is Joined by Madalyn O'Hair
http://www.atheists.org/courthouse/joined.html
[excerpt]
For several generations Leo Pfeffer, a lawyer for the American Jewish
Congress, was held out to be an expert on this genre of litigation. He took
an old state/church separation study, Church and State in the United
States, three volumes, by Anson Phelps Stokes,[1] put out by Harper &
Brothers Publishing, and edited it to one volume issued by Harper in 1950
and later by Greenwood Press, Inc. in 1964 under the authorship of Anson
Stokes and Leo Pfeffer. Later editions carried only Pfeffer's name. He
reedited, updated, reissued, and rewrote the book again, using only his own
name, this time under the title God, Caesar and the Constitution: The Court
as Referee of Church-State Confrontation, published by Beacon Press. But he
was a religious man of a particular minority sect (Judaism), attempting to
gain respectability and acceptance for Judaism in the United States. The
American Jewish Congress is a powerful arm of Judaism in our nation, and
Pfeffer came to be accepted as the authority on state/church separation. He
was, in fact, often one of the lawyers making an appearance on certain of
the Supreme Court cases. The Supreme Court for decades depended on the work
originally written by Stokes and cited the book in its cases. In later
years, the Court also quoted Pfeffer's revisions.
[end excerpt]
[1] Secretary of Yale University and canon of Washington Cathedral, Stokes
died in 1958.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Anson Phelps Stokes.htm
http://www.nathanielturner.com/ansonphelpsstokes.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Church and State in the United States . 3 Volumes, Anson Phelps Stokes,
D.D. LL.D, Harper & Brothers, (1950) is a remarkable body of work,
Leonard W. Levy who is no slouch on the topic of Church State Separation
had this to say:
Stokes, Anson Phelps, Chruch and State in the United States, 3
Vols, New York; Harper Bros., 1950, Classic, monumental, comprehensive
study by a moderate preferenialist. Invaluable..
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The Establishment Clause, Religion and the First
Amendment, Second Edition, Revised, by Leonard Levy, University of North
Carolina Press, (1994) p.261-63)
It is important to point out that Stokes would be considered as a slight to
moderate accommodationist, but by no means would he qualify as a theocratic
Also he tends to have a bit of Mom's apply pie filter in place when he
talks of America of the time he is writing these books , however, so long
as one understands that, it doesn't distract from the value of the overall
work.
A couple of the values of this three volume set of books, even though they
are 56 years old and many things have changed, is they are a great source
for trashing the theocrats claims that Church State Separation is myth or
is a liberal conspiracy created in the 60s
Here is a item I frequently use from his work:
ANSON PHELPS STOKES
" 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)
These books are a must for background for any serious reseracher. I am
lucky enough to have the three volumes as well as the Revised 1964 edition
Church and State in the United States by Anson Phelps Stokes updated and
revised by Leo Pfeffer
****************************************************************************************
You are nothing more than a internet troll with a ideology, an agenda, and
plenty of propaganda sound bites and spin
A Alan Keyes clone, a theocratic radical, out of step with the mainstream.
A nobody poster on the internet.
[snipped the usual fred says propaganda, the usual incorrect mantras he
keep repeating}
***************************************************************
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 US 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)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Church-State Relations Part 2 |
10 Feb 2006 09:42:16 AM |
|
|
On 9 Feb 2006 19:08:50 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
THE BASIS OF CHURCH-STATE RELATIONS PART 2
Section 1. STATE JURISDICTION
It will be noticed that these provisions, as well as the guarantee of
religious freedom in the Bill of Rights,3 leave each of the original states
free to legislate as it will in such matters as education and religion, as
long as "a Republican Form of Government" is maintained. The Constitution's
two references to religion-in the last clause of Article VI of the original
document. and in Article I of the Bill of Rights-were originally understood
as binding only in territory, or among officials, under Federal
jurisdiction. This condition continued to be legally true until the
adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment at the close of the Civil War provided
a basis on which the religious-freedom guarantee was interpreted by the
Supreme Court as also applicable in the states.' But the influence of the
ideals creating and underlying the Federal Constitution were so
great, and its implications so clear, that long before this historic
interpretation by the court every state had, as we have seen, adopted the
principle of Church-State separation and religious freedom.
Church and State in the United States . Volume I I I, Anson Phelps Stokes,
D.D. LL.D, Harper & Brothers, p. 442-43 (1950)
The above information about the 14th Amendment is an outright lie.
Corrupt Justices twisted the reasonable interpretation of the 14 to rob
the states of their power to legislate religion. Consider the
following:
It simply cannot be "corrupt" Freddie--it's handed down
in legitimate decisions from a legitimate court.
No doubt it is shooting your beliefs down
I strongly urge you to: a) either change your silly
beliefs; b) stop trying to "interpret" constitutional
law using a "common sense" approach----because your
"common sense" can't pass the laugh test.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The_Sage" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Church-State Relations Part 2 |
09 Feb 2006 10:43:10 PM |
|
|
Reply to article by:
Date written: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 15:58:06 -0500
MsgID:<k6bnu1ti5o4aklvtakvokdjirbt0b6uen0@4ax.com>
THE BASIS OF CHURCH-STATE RELATIONS PART 2
Section 1. STATE JURISDICTION
It will be noticed that these provisions, as well as the guarantee of
religious freedom in the Bill of Rights,3 leave each of the original states
free to legislate as it will in such matters as education and religion, as
long as "a Republican Form of Government" is maintained. The Constitution's
two references to religion—in the last clause of Article VI of the original
document. and in Article I of the Bill of Rights—were originally understood
as binding only in territory, or among officials, under Federal
jurisdiction. This condition continued to be legally true until the
adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment at the close of the Civil War provided
a basis on which the religious-freedom guarantee was interpreted by the
Supreme Court as also applicable in the states.' But the influence of the
ideals creating and underlying the Federal Constitution were so
great, and its implications so clear, that long before this historic
interpretation by the court every state had, as we have seen, adopted the
principle of Church-State separation and religious freedom.
Church and State in the United States . Volume I I I, Anson Phelps Stokes,
D.D. LL.D, Harper & Brothers, p. 442-43 (1950)
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union,
establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense,
promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves
and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United
States of America"
Amendment I
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of
the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
government for a redress of grievances"
Amendment IX
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed
to deny or disparage others retained by the people".
Your freedoms are not without limits. You nor the states have a right to freely
practice anything that infringes on the freedom of other people, which means the
states do not have the right to freely legislate matters in education and
religion without boundary. Religion is purely a private matter, whether you like
it or not. That is why it is called "freedom" of religion. In this country, it
matters not what religion you have or don't have. It means freedom from
in-your-face fanatics and over-zealous proselytizing. It means no one has the
right to educate my children with anything other than purely acedemic agendas.
It means we are protected from any kind of religious monopoly, so that we might
live in the Constitutional ideal of peace and tranquility with each other. There
is no liberty more blessed than that.
The Sage
=============================================================
http://members.cox.net/the.sage/index.htm
"Little minds are interested in the extraordinary; great
minds in the commonplace"
-- Elbert Hubbard, ROYCROFT DICTIONARY AND BOOK OF EPIGRAMS
=============================================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Church-State Relations Part 2; that pesky 10th A. again |
10 Feb 2006 01:14:04 PM |
|
|
The_Sage wrote:
Reply to article by:
Date written: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 15:58:06 -0500
MsgID:<k6bnu1ti5o4aklvtakvokdjirbt0b6uen0@4ax.com>
THE BASIS OF CHURCH-STATE RELATIONS PART 2
Section 1. STATE JURISDICTION
It will be noticed that these provisions, as well as the guarantee of
religious freedom in the Bill of Rights,3 leave each of the original states
free to legislate as it will in such matters as education and religion, as
long as "a Republican Form of Government" is maintained. The Constitution's
two references to religion-in the last clause of Article VI of the original
document. and in Article I of the Bill of Rights-were originally understood
as binding only in territory, or among officials, under Federal
jurisdiction. This condition continued to be legally true until the
adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment at the close of the Civil War provided
a basis on which the religious-freedom guarantee was interpreted by the
Supreme Court as also applicable in the states.' But the influence of the
ideals creating and underlying the Federal Constitution were so
great, and its implications so clear, that long before this historic
interpretation by the court every state had, as we have seen, adopted the
principle of Church-State separation and religious freedom.
Church and State in the United States . Volume I I I, Anson Phelps Stokes,
D.D. LL.D, Harper & Brothers, p. 442-43 (1950)
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union,
establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense,
promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves
and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United
States of America"
Amendment I
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of
the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
government for a redress of grievances"
Amendment IX
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed
to deny or disparage others retained by the people".
Your freedoms are not without limits.
You're trying to sidestep the power of the States to legislate
religion. I never said that our freedoms are not without limits.
You nor the states have a right to freely
practice anything that infringes on the freedom of other people, which means the
states do not have the right to freely legislate matters in education and
religion without boundary.
You're trying to sidestep the power of the States to legislate
religion. I never said that the states have the power to freely
practice anything that infringes on the freedom of the people.
Religion is purely a private matter, whether you like
it or not.
The 10th Amendment is not going to go away no matter how much you or
your loser, anti-religious expression Justice friends try to sweep it
under the carpet.
That is why it is called "freedom" of religion. In this country, it
matters not what religion you have or don't have. It means freedom from
in-your-face fanatics and over-zealous proselytizing. It means no one has the
right to educate my children with anything other than purely acedemic agendas.
It means we are protected from any kind of religious monopoly, so that we might
live in the Constitutional ideal of peace and tranquility with each other. There
is no liberty more blessed than that.
You are ignoring that we are now living under the tyranny of a
perverted interpretation of the Constitution where our religious
freedoms are concerned as opposed to the reasonable checks and balances
of the 1st, 10th and 14th Amendments. You are turning your head from
the fact that public schools, for example, are not willing to teach
intelligent design because of the risk of being dragged in front of
loser judges who are unlawfully legislating unconstitutional absolute
church-state separation from the bench on a case by case basis:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181905,00.html
The Sage
=============================================================
http://members.cox.net/the.sage/index.htm
"Little minds are interested in the extraordinary; great
minds in the commonplace"
-- Elbert Hubbard, ROYCROFT DICTIONARY AND BOOK OF EPIGRAMS
=============================================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "ouroboros rex" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Church-State Relations Part 2; that pesky 10th A. again |
10 Feb 2006 01:44:05 PM |
|
|
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139598844.232265.3720@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The_Sage wrote:
Reply to article by:
Date written: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 15:58:06 -0500
MsgID:<k6bnu1ti5o4aklvtakvokdjirbt0b6uen0@4ax.com>
THE BASIS OF CHURCH-STATE RELATIONS PART 2
Section 1. STATE JURISDICTION
It will be noticed that these provisions, as well as the guarantee of
religious freedom in the Bill of Rights,3 leave each of the original
states
free to legislate as it will in such matters as education and religion,
as
long as "a Republican Form of Government" is maintained. The
Constitution's
two references to religion-in the last clause of Article VI of the
original
document. and in Article I of the Bill of Rights-were originally
understood
as binding only in territory, or among officials, under Federal
jurisdiction. This condition continued to be legally true until the
adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment at the close of the Civil War
provided
a basis on which the religious-freedom guarantee was interpreted by the
Supreme Court as also applicable in the states.' But the influence of
the
ideals creating and underlying the Federal Constitution were so
great, and its implications so clear, that long before this historic
interpretation by the court every state had, as we have seen, adopted
the
principle of Church-State separation and religious freedom.
Church and State in the United States . Volume I I I, Anson Phelps
Stokes,
D.D. LL.D, Harper & Brothers, p. 442-43 (1950)
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect
union,
establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common
defense,
promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to
ourselves
and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
United
States of America"
Amendment I
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of
the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the
government for a redress of grievances"
Amendment IX
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed
to deny or disparage others retained by the people".
Your freedoms are not without limits.
You're trying to sidestep the power of the States to legislate
religion. I never said that our freedoms are not without limits.
You nor the states have a right to freely
practice anything that infringes on the freedom of other people, which
means the
states do not have the right to freely legislate matters in education and
religion without boundary.
You're trying to sidestep the power of the States to legislate
religion. I never said that the states have the power to freely
practice anything that infringes on the freedom of the people.
Religion is purely a private matter, whether you like
it or not.
The 10th Amendment is not going to go away no matter how much you or
your loser, anti-religious expression Justice friends try to sweep it
under the carpet.
That is why it is called "freedom" of religion. In this country, it
matters not what religion you have or don't have. It means freedom from
in-your-face fanatics and over-zealous proselytizing. It means no one has
the
right to educate my children with anything other than purely acedemic
agendas.
It means we are protected from any kind of religious monopoly, so that we
might
live in the Constitutional ideal of peace and tranquility with each
other. There
is no liberty more blessed than that.
You are ignoring that we are now living under the tyranny of a
perverted interpretation of the Constitution where our religious
freedoms are concerned as opposed to the reasonable checks and balances
of the 1st, 10th and 14th Amendments. You are turning your head from
the fact that public schools, for example, are not willing to teach
intelligent design because of the risk of being dragged in front of
loser judges who are unlawfully legislating unconstitutional absolute
church-state separation from the bench on a case by case basis:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181905,00.html
Same lying kook, different day.
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Church-State Relations Part 2; that pesky 10th A. again |
10 Feb 2006 02:12:35 PM |
|
|
ouroboros rex wrote:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139598844.232265.3720@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The_Sage wrote:
Reply to article by:
Date written: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 15:58:06 -0500
MsgID:<k6bnu1ti5o4aklvtakvokdjirbt0b6uen0@4ax.com>
THE BASIS OF CHURCH-STATE RELATIONS PART 2
Section 1. STATE JURISDICTION
It will be noticed that these provisions, as well as the guarantee of
religious freedom in the Bill of Rights,3 leave each of the original
states
free to legislate as it will in such matters as education and religion,
as
long as "a Republican Form of Government" is maintained. The
Constitution's
two references to religion-in the last clause of Article VI of the
original
document. and in Article I of the Bill of Rights-were originally
understood
as binding only in territory, or among officials, under Federal
jurisdiction. This condition continued to be legally true until the
adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment at the close of the Civil War
provided
a basis on which the religious-freedom guarantee was interpreted by the
Supreme Court as also applicable in the states.' But the influence of
the
ideals creating and underlying the Federal Constitution were so
great, and its implications so clear, that long before this historic
interpretation by the court every state had, as we have seen, adopted
the
principle of Church-State separation and religious freedom.
Church and State in the United States . Volume I I I, Anson Phelps
Stokes,
D.D. LL.D, Harper & Brothers, p. 442-43 (1950)
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect
union,
establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common
defense,
promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to
ourselves
and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
United
States of America"
Amendment I
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of
the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the
government for a redress of grievances"
Amendment IX
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed
to deny or disparage others retained by the people".
Your freedoms are not without limits.
You're trying to sidestep the power of the States to legislate
religion. I never said that our freedoms are not without limits.
You nor the states have a right to freely
practice anything that infringes on the freedom of other people, which
means the
states do not have the right to freely legislate matters in education and
religion without boundary.
You're trying to sidestep the power of the States to legislate
religion. I never said that the states have the power to freely
practice anything that infringes on the freedom of the people.
Religion is purely a private matter, whether you like
it or not.
The 10th Amendment is not going to go away no matter how much you or
your loser, anti-religious expression Justice friends try to sweep it
under the carpet.
That is why it is called "freedom" of religion. In this country, it
matters not what religion you have or don't have. It means freedom from
in-your-face fanatics and over-zealous proselytizing. It means no one has
the
right to educate my children with anything other than purely acedemic
agendas.
It means we are protected from any kind of religious monopoly, so that we
might
live in the Constitutional ideal of peace and tranquility with each
other. There
is no liberty more blessed than that.
You are ignoring that we are now living under the tyranny of a
perverted interpretation of the Constitution where our religious
freedoms are concerned as opposed to the reasonable checks and balances
of the 1st, 10th and 14th Amendments. You are turning your head from
the fact that public schools, for example, are not willing to teach
intelligent design because of the risk of being dragged in front of
loser judges who are unlawfully legislating unconstitutional absolute
church-state separation from the bench on a case by case basis:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181905,00.html
Same lying kook, different day.
Sigh. :^(
Same, tired, meaningless rebuttal.
You can't make the above link about judicial tyranny in California go
away.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ouroboros rex" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Church-State Relations Part 2; that pesky 10th A. again |
10 Feb 2006 02:35:39 PM |
|
|
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139602355.389129.251490@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
ouroboros rex wrote:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139598844.232265.3720@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The_Sage wrote:
Reply to article by:
Date written: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 15:58:06 -0500
MsgID:<k6bnu1ti5o4aklvtakvokdjirbt0b6uen0@4ax.com>
THE BASIS OF CHURCH-STATE RELATIONS PART 2
Section 1. STATE JURISDICTION
It will be noticed that these provisions, as well as the guarantee of
religious freedom in the Bill of Rights,3 leave each of the original
states
free to legislate as it will in such matters as education and
religion,
as
long as "a Republican Form of Government" is maintained. The
Constitution's
two references to religion-in the last clause of Article VI of the
original
document. and in Article I of the Bill of Rights-were originally
understood
as binding only in territory, or among officials, under Federal
jurisdiction. This condition continued to be legally true until the
adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment at the close of the Civil War
provided
a basis on which the religious-freedom guarantee was interpreted by
the
Supreme Court as also applicable in the states.' But the influence of
the
ideals creating and underlying the Federal Constitution were so
great, and its implications so clear, that long before this historic
interpretation by the court every state had, as we have seen, adopted
the
principle of Church-State separation and religious freedom.
Church and State in the United States . Volume I I I, Anson Phelps
Stokes,
D.D. LL.D, Harper & Brothers, p. 442-43 (1950)
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect
union,
establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common
defense,
promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to
ourselves
and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
United
States of America"
Amendment I
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of
the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the
government for a redress of grievances"
Amendment IX
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed
to deny or disparage others retained by the people".
Your freedoms are not without limits.
You're trying to sidestep the power of the States to legislate
religion. I never said that our freedoms are not without limits.
You nor the states have a right to freely
practice anything that infringes on the freedom of other people, which
means the
states do not have the right to freely legislate matters in education
and
religion without boundary.
You're trying to sidestep the power of the States to legislate
religion. I never said that the states have the power to freely
practice anything that infringes on the freedom of the people.
Religion is purely a private matter, whether you like
it or not.
The 10th Amendment is not going to go away no matter how much you or
your loser, anti-religious expression Justice friends try to sweep it
under the carpet.
That is why it is called "freedom" of religion. In this country, it
matters not what religion you have or don't have. It means freedom
from
in-your-face fanatics and over-zealous proselytizing. It means no one
has
the
right to educate my children with anything other than purely acedemic
agendas.
It means we are protected from any kind of religious monopoly, so that
we
might
live in the Constitutional ideal of peace and tranquility with each
other. There
is no liberty more blessed than that.
You are ignoring that we are now living under the tyranny of a
perverted interpretation of the Constitution where our religious
freedoms are concerned as opposed to the reasonable checks and balances
of the 1st, 10th and 14th Amendments. You are turning your head from
the fact that public schools, for example, are not willing to teach
intelligent design because of the risk of being dragged in front of
loser judges who are unlawfully legislating unconstitutional absolute
church-state separation from the bench on a case by case basis:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181905,00.html
Same lying kook, different day.
Sigh. :^(
Same, tired, meaningless rebuttal.
You can't make the above link about judicial tyranny
Same lying kook, different day.
If I want my kid to learn fairy stories, I'LL pick the fairy stories,
thanks.
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Church-State Relations Part 2; that pesky 10th A. again |
11 Feb 2006 01:15:57 PM |
|
|
ouroboros rex wrote:
<snipped for brevity>
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181905,00.html
Same lying kook, different day.
Sigh. :^(
Same, tired, meaningless rebuttal.
You can't make the above link about judicial tyranny
Same lying kook, different day.
Why don't you simply show me from the Constitution how my reasoning is
flawed as opposed to having to resort to ad hominem remarks?
If I want my kid to learn fairy stories, I'LL pick the fairy stories,
thanks.
The personal federal rights of both you and your kids are protected
from the abuse of state government powers by the 14th. Other than not
understanding what your Constitutional protections are (are you
swallowing the street gossip about the Constitution?), I don't know why
you are insinuating that the state is going to abridge your personal
freedoms by forcing somebody else's fairy stories on your kids.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Church-State Relations Part 2; that pesky 10th A. again |
10 Feb 2006 06:36:49 PM |
|
|
On 10 Feb 2006 12:12:35 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Same, tired, meaningless rebuttal.
That's because your same, tired, false argument is
always the same
a) no "writings" of "founders" past or present are
legally binding
b) States are not soverign---no matter how you
"literally" read the constitution
c) "strict construction" is not an accepted doctrine of
constititonal construct---never has been, never will
be.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Church-State Relations Part 2; that pesky 10th A. again |
10 Feb 2006 06:34:16 PM |
|
|
On 10 Feb 2006 11:14:04 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
You're trying to sidestep the power of the States to legislate
religion. I never said that our freedoms are not without limits.
States do not have the freedom, Freddie
Isn't any of this sinking in?
a) no state can lessen what the federal constitution
guarantees (no matter what "literal" reading you
believe to be true)
b) States did not give a federal constitution their
power---the people did. "States" were only a
demographic way of doing so.
c) at ratification, states ceded all "supremacy" over a
national government---giving only ONE (1) entity (the
USSC) the task of interpreting what the constitution
"means".
Every argument you make is dependent on a couple of
things that are false; 1) that a "literal" reading is
the accepted view of constitional construct; 2) that
states created the national government (they did
not---people did); 3) that states can "read" the
constitution as they choose.
You're wrong because the foundation of your arguments
is a false premise.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Church-State Relations Part 2; that pesky 10th A. again |
11 Feb 2006 08:18:51 AM |
|
|
laffs@'em-all.com wrote:
:|On 10 Feb 2006 11:14:04 -0800, "fred"
:|<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
:|
:|
:|>You're trying to sidestep the power of the States to legislate
:|>religion. I never said that our freedoms are not without limits.
:|
:|States do not have the freedom, Freddie
:|
:|Isn't any of this sinking in?
:|
:|a) no state can lessen what the federal constitution
:|guarantees (no matter what "literal" reading you
:|believe to be true)
:|
:|b) States did not give a federal constitution their
:|power---the people did. "States" were only a
:|demographic way of doing so.
:|
:|c) at ratification, states ceded all "supremacy" over a
:|national government---giving only ONE (1) entity (the
:|USSC) the task of interpreting what the constitution
:|"means".
:|
:|Every argument you make is dependent on a couple of
:|things that are false; 1) that a "literal" reading is
:|the accepted view of constitional construct; 2) that
:|states created the national government (they did
:|not---people did); 3) that states can "read" the
:|constitution as they choose.
:|
:|You're wrong because the foundation of your arguments
:|is a false premise.
Fred has been here more or less since late spring or early summer 2004
He has been posting this same crap since then and he manages to sucker in
enough people who think they will be the one to straighten him out. to keep
him going
However he is a troll and no one is going to straighten him out. Eventually
people will understand that and will ignore him
There isn't a single argument or bit of fact that you can offer fred that
hasn't been offered by a large number of people time after time after time
It will make no difference to him, he will continue trolling, jumping in
to posts by others to troll, hoping to sucker in some replies from people
so he can continue playing his games.
***************************************************************
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 US 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)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Church-State Relations Part 2; that pesky 10th A. again |
11 Feb 2006 08:31:24 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 09:18:51 -0500,
buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
Fred has been here more or less since late spring or early summer 2004
He has been posting this same crap since then and he manages to sucker in
enough people who think they will be the one to straighten him out. to keep
him going
However he is a troll and no one is going to straighten him out. Eventually
people will understand that and will ignore him
There isn't a single argument or bit of fact that you can offer fred that
hasn't been offered by a large number of people time after time after time
It will make no difference to him, he will continue trolling, jumping in
to posts by others to troll, hoping to sucker in some replies from people
so he can continue playing his games.
Silence might be taken for tacit agreement.
Freddie is comic relief and I'm sure that anyone
exhibiting such a childish concept of civics and legal
construction isn't ever going to change
People like Freddie and Judge Moore are caught up in
beliefs that cannot be changed---or it destroys any
hope of possible acceptance of their views.
Without his trolling, Freddie is helpless as a person.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Church-State Relations Part 2; that pesky 10th A. again |
12 Feb 2006 01:12:48 PM |
|
|
laffs@'em-all.com wrote:
:|On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 09:18:51 -0500,
:|buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
:|
:|
:|>Fred has been here more or less since late spring or early summer 2004
:|>He has been posting this same crap since then and he manages to sucker in
:|>enough people who think they will be the one to straighten him out. to keep
:|>him going
:|>
:|>However he is a troll and no one is going to straighten him out. Eventually
:|>people will understand that and will ignore him
:|>
:|>There isn't a single argument or bit of fact that you can offer fred that
:|>hasn't been offered by a large number of people time after time after time
:|>
:|>It will make no difference to him, he will continue trolling, jumping in
:|>to posts by others to troll, hoping to sucker in some replies from people
:|>so he can continue playing his games.
:|
:|Silence might be taken for tacit agreement.
Not in his case;
:|Freddie is comic relief and I'm sure that anyone
:|exhibiting such a childish concept of civics and legal
:|construction isn't ever going to change
You are right about that he isn't going to change.
:|People like Freddie and Judge Moore are caught up in
:|beliefs that cannot be changed---or it destroys any
:|hope of possible acceptance of their views.
:|
:|Without his trolling, Freddie is helpless as a person.
Without people encouraging him by acknowledging him via replying to him he
would eventually go away.
***************************************************************
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 US 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)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Church-State Relations Part 2; that pesky 10th A. again |
13 Feb 2006 11:37:48 AM |
|
|
wrote:
laffs@'em-all.com wrote:
:|On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 09:18:51 -0500,
:| wrote:
:|
:|
:|>Fred has been here more or less since late spring or early summer 2004
:|>He has been posting this same crap since then and he manages to suck=
er in
:|>enough people who think they will be the one to straighten him out. t=
o keep
:|>him going
:|>
:|>However he is a troll and no one is going to straighten him out. Even=
tually
:|>people will understand that and will ignore him
:|>
:|>There isn't a single argument or bit of fact that you can offer fred =
that
:|>hasn't been offered by a large number of people time after time after=
time
:|>
:|>It will make no difference to him, he will continue trolling, jumpin=
g in
:|>to posts by others to troll, hoping to sucker in some replies from pe=
ople
:|>so he can continue playing his games.
:|
:|Silence might be taken for tacit agreement.
Not in his case;
:|Freddie is comic relief and I'm sure that anyone
:|exhibiting such a childish concept of civics and legal
:|construction isn't ever going to change
You are right about that he isn't going to change.
I'm not going to change any more than the historical facts that I've
been referencing aren't going to change. The problem is that atheists,
separationists, secular judges, the liberal media, and people like you
are trying to rewrite history.
:|People like Freddie and Judge Moore are caught up in
:|beliefs that cannot be changed---or it destroys any
:|hope of possible acceptance of their views.
:|
:|Without his trolling, Freddie is helpless as a person.
Without people encouraging him by acknowledging him via replying to him he
would eventually go away.
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS =B7 Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US 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. Eisne=
r,
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)
. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Church-State Relations Part 2; that pesky 10th A. again |
13 Feb 2006 08:31:46 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 11:37, "fred43" wrote:
I'm not going to change any more than the historical facts that I've
been referencing aren't going to change. The problem is that atheists,
separationists, secular judges, the liberal media, and people like you
are trying to rewrite history.
Little FreddiePoo is the only one in-step, more intelligent than humans,
superior to all because s/he/it is not like people but more resembles the
more superior EuroNeanderthal (who have gotten a bad press and it's just NOT
FAIR) and when we are all dead, Little FreddiePoo will really show us mehums
and notfreddiepoos people because s/he/it will be in charge of the 666th Ring
of Hades.
And, if we don't all behave and treat Little FreddiePoo like s/he/it really
deserves, s/he/it will jump up and down and hold his/her/its breath and we'll
all be sorry when s/he/it is dead.
Or sumthin'.
Gray Shockley
---------------------------------
Stop Cheney Before He Kills
In Person
USA Military in Iraq: 2265 Dead
for George W C Bush43's ego
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Church-State Relations Part 2; that pesky 10th A. again |
13 Feb 2006 11:03:51 PM |
|
|
Gray Shockley wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 11:37, "fred43" wrote:
I'm not going to change any more than the historical facts that I've
been referencing aren't going to change. The problem is that atheists,
separationists, secular judges, the liberal media, and people like you
are trying to rewrite history.
Little FreddiePoo is the only one in-step, more intelligent than humans,
superior to all because s/he/it is not like people but more resembles the
more superior EuroNeanderthal (who have gotten a bad press and it's just NOT
FAIR) and when we are all dead, Little FreddiePoo will really show us mehums
and notfreddiepoos people because s/he/it will be in charge of the 666th Ring
of Hades.
And, if we don't all behave and treat Little FreddiePoo like s/he/it really
deserves, s/he/it will jump up and down and hold his/her/its breath and we'll
all be sorry when s/he/it is dead.
FreddiePoo is simply shooting from the hip with respect to applying
basic reading skills and common sense to interpreting the Constitution
and related materials. FreddiePoo's references include the 1st, 10th
and 14th Amendments, extracts from the Everson, Opelika and Cantwell
opinions, and also quotes by Jefferson and Lincoln. In contrast, all
FreddioPoo has been getting from you anti-religious expression folks is
emotionally based rants that the USSC's decisions are beyond reproach.
And speaking of Jefferson and Lincoln:
"We the People are the rightful master of both congress and the courts
- not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who
pervert the Constitution." --Abraham Lincoln (Political debates between
Lincoln and Douglas) 1858
"One single object... [will merit] the endless gratitude of society:
that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation." --Thomas
Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:113
Or sumthin'.
Gray Shockley
---------------------------------
Stop Cheney Before He Kills
In Person
USA Military in Iraq: 2265 Dead
for George W C Bush43's ego
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Church-State Relations Part 2; that pesky 10th A. again |
14 Feb 2006 12:07:09 PM |
|
|
fred wrote:
FreddiePoo is simply shooting from the hip with respect to applying
basic reading skills and common sense to interpreting the Constitution
and related materials.
How do basic reading skills and common sense conclude that mandatory
classroom discussions about the pros and cons of evolution infringe
upon
a protected personal federal right (what would that protected right
be),
but non-mandatory classes do not?
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Hewitt" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Church-State Relations Part 2; that pesky 10th A. again |
14 Feb 2006 01:04:29 PM |
|
|
<jrosenbluth@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1139940429.620738.235670@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
fred wrote:
FreddiePoo is simply shooting from the hip with respect to applying
basic reading skills and common sense to interpreting the Constitution
and related materials.
How do basic reading skills and common sense conclude that mandatory
classroom discussions about the pros and cons of evolution infringe
upon
a protected personal federal right (what would that protected right
be),
but non-mandatory classes do not?
1. All "con" arguments on evoolution are baased on religion, not science.
While the theory is not complete, and some details _are_ open to discussion,
the basic framework of evolution is the scientifiaclly accepted explantion
for existence of life.
2. The protected right is the ban on government --- any government, not
just the federal government as Fred is tying to suggest --- establishment of
religion. Every religion has its own origin fable. Which one(s) do you
"teach"?
3. Mandatory classes are government coercion. Failure to comply will result
in penalty. This is the essence of government establishment.
4. Non-mandatory classes are no coercive. But even they have to be careful
not to fall into establishment and must maintian equaity of all religions
and approach the subject with the clear, unequivocable uderstanding that
fables are being discussed, not science.
Larry
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Church-State Relations Part 2; that pesky 10th A. again |
16 Feb 2006 08:20:50 PM |
|
|
Larry Hewitt wrote:
<jrosenbluth@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1139940429.620738.235670@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
fred wrote:
FreddiePoo is simply shooting from the hip with respect to applying
basic reading skills and common sense to interpreting the Constitution
and related materials.
How do basic reading skills and common sense conclude that mandatory
classroom discussions about the pros and cons of evolution infringe
upon
a protected personal federal right (what would that protected right
be),
but non-mandatory classes do not?
1. All "con" arguments on evoolution are baased on religion, not science.
While the theory is not complete, and some details _are_ open to discussion,
the basic framework of evolution is the scientifiaclly accepted explantion
for existence of life.
LIAR!
Evolutionists have had 10 years to disprove Michael Behe's examples of
irreducible complexity in "Darwin's Black Box". Instead, all they've
been able to cough up after all this time are emotional rants such as
the scientific sophistry at talk.origins.
2. The protected right is the ban on government --- any government, not
just the federal government as Fred is tying to suggest --- establishment of
religion. Every religion has its own origin fable. Which one(s) do you
"teach"?
I'm not going to concern myself with your vague references to the
Constitution. I want you to logically refute, by means of specific
references to the Constitution and relevant historical documents, the
common sense conclusion that the 10th A. reasonably reserved for the
states the power to legislate religion since the 1st A. explicitly
prohibited this power only to Congress.
3. Mandatory classes are government coercion. Failure to comply will result
in penalty. This is the essence of government establishment.
Who said anything about mandatory classes? I certainly didn't. In
fact I disagree with Jefferson's remark which can be construed that
religion classes should be required:
"Thus we have teachers of languages, teachers of mathematics, of
natural philosophy, of chemistry, of medicine, of law, of history, of
government, etc. Religion, too, is a separate department, and happens
to be the only one deemed requisite for all men, however high or low."
--Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815.
4. Non-mandatory classes are no coercive. But even they have to be careful
not to fall into establishment and must maintian equaity of all religions
and approach the subject with the clear, unequivocable uderstanding that
fables are being discussed, not science.
My basic reading skills and common sense tell me that the establishment
clause does nothing more than help to clarify the kinds of laws that
the federal Congress is prohibited from making.
Larry
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Church-State Relations Part 2; that pesky 10th A. again |
14 Feb 2006 01:45:51 PM |
|
|
wrote:
fred wrote:
FreddiePoo is simply shooting from the hip with respect to applying
basic reading skills and common sense to interpreting the Constitution
and related materials.
How do basic reading skills and common sense conclude that mandatory
classroom discussions about the pros and cons of evolution infringe
upon
a protected personal federal right (what would that protected right
be),
but non-mandatory classes do not?
Josh Rosenbluth
Use your head.
Discussing the pro's and cons of controversial issues can potentially
expose ideas based merely on political correctness and junk science for
what they really are.
Atheists and evolutionists, for example, are not going to tolerate
their kids being asked to consider that the world is still holding its
breath, 10 long years since his book "Darwin's Black Box" has been
published, waiting for evolutionists to scientifically refute (the
emotional rants at talk.origins aside) Dr. Behe's examples of
irreducible complexity. Such an idea might inspire the idea of the
existance of a supreme being in their kid's minds which evolutionists
are evidently convinced leads to permanent brain damage.
On the other hand, creationists are predictably not going to tolerate
their children being told that, although Genesis provides enough
information for a reasonable estimate of the age of modern man, Genesis
doesn't clearly indicate how old the earth is. Heaven forbid that the
children of creationists entertain the horrible thought that aspects of
creationism might actually be based on the "traditions of men" which
Jesus warned his followers about.
The bottom line is that the 14th's protections of personal federal
rights includes the right, in my reasonable opinion, to put your faith
into ideas, arguably mere myths and junk science, that cannot be
irrefutably proved or disproved.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Church-State Relations Part 2; that pesky 10th A. again |
15 Feb 2006 08:49:46 AM |
|
|
fred wrote:
jrosenbluth@comcast.net wrote:
fred wrote:
FreddiePoo is simply shooting from the hip with respect to applying
basic reading skills and common sense to interpreting the Constitution
and related materials.
How do basic reading skills and common sense conclude that mandatory
classroom discussions about the pros and cons of evolution infringe upon
a protected personal federal right (what would that protected right be),
but non-mandatory classes do not?
Use your head.
Discussing the pro's and cons of controversial issues can potentially
expose ideas based merely on political correctness and junk science for
what they really are.
Atheists and evolutionists, for example, are not going to tolerate
their kids being asked to consider that the world is still holding its
breath, 10 long years since his book "Darwin's Black Box" has been
published, waiting for evolutionists to scientifically refute (the
emotional rants at talk.origins aside) Dr. Behe's examples of
irreducible complexity. Such an idea might inspire the idea of the
existance of a supreme being in their kid's minds which evolutionists
are evidently convinced leads to permanent brain damage.
On the other hand, creationists are predictably not going to tolerate
their children being told that, although Genesis provides enough
information for a reasonable estimate of the age of modern man, Genesis
doesn't clearly indicate how old the earth is. Heaven forbid that the
children of creationists entertain the horrible thought that aspects of
creationism might actually be based on the "traditions of men" which
Jesus warned his followers about.
The bottom line is that the 14th's protections of personal federal
rights includes the right, in my reasonable opinion, to put your faith
into ideas, arguably mere myths and junk science, that cannot be
irrefutably proved or disproved.
Are you saying the mandatory teaching of creationism in a science class
violates the personal federal right to be taught how you wish when it
comes to religion? I buy that.
But, isn't it also *reasonable* (even if you disagree) that
non-mandatory teaching of creationism in a science class is coercive
because the community is putting pressure on parents and kids to
conform by taking these classes? Thus, isn't it reasonable that the
same personal federal right is being violated as in the case of
mandatory instruction?
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Church-State Relations Part 2; that pesky 10th A. again |
15 Feb 2006 01:38:14 PM |
|
|
wrote:
fred wrote:
jrosenbluth@comcast.net wrote:
fred wrote:
FreddiePoo is simply shooting from the hip with respect to applying
basic reading skills and common sense to interpreting the Constitution
and related materials.
How do basic reading skills and common sense conclude that mandatory
classroom discussions about the pros and cons of evolution infringe upon
a protected personal federal right (what would that protected right be),
but non-mandatory classes do not?
Use your head.
Discussing the pro's and cons of controversial issues can potentially
expose ideas based merely on political correctness and junk science for
what they really are.
Atheists and evolutionists, for example, are not going to tolerate
their kids being asked to consider that the world is still holding its
breath, 10 long years since his book "Darwin's Black Box" has been
published, waiting for evolutionists to scientifically refute (the
emotional rants at talk.origins aside) Dr. Behe's examples of
irreducible complexity. Such an idea might inspire the idea of the
existance of a supreme being in their kid's minds which evolutionists
are evidently convinced leads to permanent brain damage.
On the other hand, creationists are predictably not going to tolerate
their children being told that, although Genesis provides enough
information for a reasonable estimate of the age of modern man, Genesis
doesn't clearly indicate how old the earth is. Heaven forbid that the
children of creationists entertain the horrible thought that aspects of
creationism might actually be based on the "traditions of men" which
Jesus warned his followers about.
The bottom line is that the 14th's protections of personal federal
rights includes the right, in my reasonable opinion, to put your faith
into ideas, arguably mere myths and junk science, that cannot be
irrefutably proved or disproved.
Are you saying the mandatory teaching of creationism in a science class
violates the personal federal right to be taught how you wish when it
comes to religion? I buy that.
Please reword your statement. I'm not sure what you meant.
There is no problem if a non-mandatory science class is described in a
course catalog as a science class that teaches science from a
creationism point of view. If you don't like the sound of the course
description then simply don't sign up for the class.
But, isn't it also *reasonable* (even if you disagree) that
non-mandatory teaching of creationism in a science class is coercive
because the community is putting pressure on parents and kids to
conform by taking these classes? Thus, isn't it reasonable that the
same personal federal right is being violated as in the case of
mandatory instruction?
Josh Rosenbluth
I'll draw the line here. I won't deny that such coersion isn't real.
However, neither can you abridge other people's federal rights because
of your religious phobias. If a student feels that they have been
coerced into taking such classes then they can find a lawyer who will
defend their 14th protected personal federal rights.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Church-State Relations Part 2; that pesky 10th A. again |
15 Feb 2006 02:13:19 PM |
|
|
In article <1140032294.462024.132870@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> writes:
jrosenbluth@att.com wrote:
{...}
But, isn't it also *reasonable* (even if you disagree) that
non-mandatory teaching of creationism in a science class is coercive
because the community is putting pressure on parents and kids to
conform by taking these classes? Thus, isn't it reasonable that the
same personal federal right is being violated as in the case of
mandatory instruction?
Josh Rosenbluth
I'll draw the line here. I won't deny that such coersion isn't real.
However, neither can you abridge other people's federal rights because
of your religious phobias. If a student feels that they have been
coerced into taking such classes then they can find a lawyer who will
defend their 14th protected personal federal rights.
And, if such complaint is upheld by the courts, Fred will then come
here and declaim some more about "corrupt judges".
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Church-State Relations Part 2; that pesky 10th A. again |
15 Feb 2006 04:02:06 PM |
|
|
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1140032294.462024.132870@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> writes:
jrosenbluth@att.com wrote:
{...}
But, isn't it also *reasonable* (even if you disagree) that
non-mandatory teaching of creationism in a science class is coercive
because the community is putting pressure on parents and kids to
conform by taking these classes? Thus, isn't it reasonable that the
same personal federal right is being violated as in the case of
mandatory instruction?
Josh Rosenbluth
I'll draw the line here. I won't deny that such coersion isn't real.
However, neither can you abridge other people's federal rights because
of your religious phobias. If a student feels that they have been
coerced into taking such classes then they can find a lawyer who will
defend their 14th protected personal federal rights.
And, if such complaint is upheld by the courts, Fred will then come
here and declaim some more about "corrupt judges".
I'm reasonable. Depending on the situation the student could be right.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Church-State Relations Part 2; that pesky 10th A. again |
15 Feb 2006 04:06:13 PM |
|
|
In article <1140038398.911953.291540@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> writes:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1140032294.462024.132870@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "fred" <clarm | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
