| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"Nathan A. Barclay" |
| Date: |
12 Aug 2004 03:32:52 AM |
| Object: |
Buckeye, I'd like you to meet Mr. Madison |
I read another of the pieces of material Buckeye keeps posting links to, and
I found something very interesting. (The material is from "Chief Justice
Burger, I Would like You to Meet Mr. Madison" at
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/meet.htm) Buckeye keeps trying to insist
that because James Madison played such a central role in the drafting of the
First Amendment's language regarding religion, we should view that language
as encompassing the entirety of Madison's views. What would Mr. Madison
have to say about that?
"As a guide in expounding and applying the provisions of the Constitution,
the debates and incidental decisions of the convention can have no
authoritative character. However desirable it be that they should be
preserved as a gratification to the laudable curiosity felt by every people
to trace the origin and progress of their political institutions, & as a
source perhaps of some lights on the science of Government, the legitimate
meaning of the instrument must be derived from the text itself; or if a key
is to be sought elsewhere, it must be, not in the opinions of the body which
planned and proposed the Constitution, but in the sense attached to it by
the people in their respective state where it received all the authority
which it possess.(5)"
The footnote reference is "(5)Madison to Ritchie September 15, 1821,
Reprinted in 9 Writings at 71, 72."
Under this concept, James Madison's role in developing the First Amendment
does NOT give him special authority regarding its meaning. In interpreting
what the words mean in and of themselves, Mr. Madison has neither more nor
less authority than anyone else. And in interpreting the intent, it is how
the Amendment was viewed by the States when they ratified it that counts
most. What James Madison personally intended for it to mean is relevant
only to the extent that it can be shown that the States ascribed the same
meaning to it that he did.
Further, what Mr. Madison wrote years or decades after the First Amendment
was ratified has no bearing on how the States viewed the Amendment when they
ratified it. It would have taken a time machine for the States to have had
access to material that had not yet been written. Who and what James
Madison was gives us a special reason to examine the merits of what he
wrote. But ultimately, Madison's words must be judged on their own merit as
"says you, Madisonisms" (to paraphrase one of Buckeye's favorite ways of
deriding what I write), not as having any inherent special authority.
If one looks at Mr. Madison's writings, he himself did not attach special
importance to his own authorship. Instead, he allowed his words to stand on
their own merit, presenting his arguments and hoping that readers would
agree with his reasoning. Even when Mr. Madison exerted his authority as
President to veto legislation that he viewed as violating the letter or
spirit of the Constitution, he did not point to himself personally as a
source of special authority, but merely exercised the authority and
responsibility of the office that was temporarily his in the same way that
any other president could. Buckeye's attempts to portray Mr. Madison as
having special authority to unilaterally define the meaning of the First
Amendment go directly against Mr. Madison's own character.
I've been arguing off and on for quite some time that Buckeye attaches too
much importance to Mr. Madison's personal views. It is nice to have
evidence from Madison's own pen to back me up in that regard. Buckeye is
attaching special importance to Madison's personal views in a way that
Madison himself would, according to what he wrote here, have considered
improper.
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Buckeye, I'd like you to meet Mr. Madison |
15 Aug 2004 12:43:38 PM |
|
|
"Nathan A. Barclay" <nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:
:|
:|I read another of the pieces of material Buckeye keeps posting links to, and
:|I found something very interesting. (The material is from "Chief Justice
:|Burger, I Would like You to Meet Mr. Madison" at
:|http://members.tripod.com/~candst/meet.htm) Buckeye keeps trying to insist
:|that because James Madison played such a central role in the drafting of the
:|First Amendment's language regarding religion, we should view that language
:|as encompassing the entirety of Madison's views. What would Mr. Madison
:|have to say about that?
:|
:|"As a guide in expounding and applying the provisions of the Constitution,
:|the debates and incidental decisions of the convention can have no
:|authoritative character. However desirable it be that they should be
:|preserved as a gratification to the laudable curiosity felt by every people
:|to trace the origin and progress of their political institutions, & as a
:|source perhaps of some lights on the science of Government, the legitimate
:|meaning of the instrument must be derived from the text itself; or if a key
:|is to be sought elsewhere, it must be, not in the opinions of the body which
:|planned and proposed the Constitution, but in the sense attached to it by
:|the people in their respective state where it received all the authority
:|which it possess.(5)"
:|
:|The footnote reference is "(5)Madison to Ritchie September 15, 1821,
:|Reprinted in 9 Writings at 71, 72."
:|
:|Under this concept, James Madison's role in developing the First Amendment
:|does NOT give him special authority regarding its meaning. In interpreting
:|what the words mean in and of themselves, Mr. Madison has neither more nor
:|less authority than anyone else. And in interpreting the intent, it is how
:|the Amendment was viewed by the States when they ratified it that counts
:|most. What James Madison personally intended for it to mean is relevant
:|only to the extent that it can be shown that the States ascribed the same
:|meaning to it that he did.
:|
:|Further, what Mr. Madison wrote years or decades after the First Amendment
:|was ratified has no bearing on how the States viewed the Amendment when they
:|ratified it. It would have taken a time machine for the States to have had
:|access to material that had not yet been written. Who and what James
:|Madison was gives us a special reason to examine the merits of what he
:|wrote. But ultimately, Madison's words must be judged on their own merit as
:|"says you, Madisonisms" (to paraphrase one of Buckeye's favorite ways of
:|deriding what I write), not as having any inherent special authority.
:|
:|If one looks at Mr. Madison's writings, he himself did not attach special
:|importance to his own authorship. Instead, he allowed his words to stand on
:|their own merit, presenting his arguments and hoping that readers would
:|agree with his reasoning. Even when Mr. Madison exerted his authority as
:|President to veto legislation that he viewed as violating the letter or
:|spirit of the Constitution, he did not point to himself personally as a
:|source of special authority, but merely exercised the authority and
:|responsibility of the office that was temporarily his in the same way that
:|any other president could. Buckeye's attempts to portray Mr. Madison as
:|having special authority to unilaterally define the meaning of the First
:|Amendment go directly against Mr. Madison's own character.
:|
:|I've been arguing off and on for quite some time that Buckeye attaches too
:|much importance to Mr. Madison's personal views. It is nice to have
:|evidence from Madison's own pen to back me up in that regard. Buckeye is
:|attaching special importance to Madison's personal views in a way that
:|Madison himself would, according to what he wrote here, have considered
:|improper.
:|
Church-State Separation:
A Keystone to Peace
Clark Moeller, January 2004 --
[Copyright 2004, Pennsylvania Alliance for Democracy -- Printing, copying
and distribution is encouraged with full attribution.]
APPENDICES
Criticisms of the ‘Church-State Separation' Concept
http://padnet.org/CSS2/CSS2AppdxCrit.html
APPENDICES
Criticisms of the ‘Church-State Separation' Concept
Three common criticisms of church-state separation include the complaints
that the meaning of the Establishment Clause does not imply the concept of
separation of church from state, none of the separation phrases such as
‘church-state separation' are found in the language of the First Amendment,
and America has been and continues to be a Christian nation. These
criticisms are not based on the revealed truths of religion, but rather
rest on historical claims which either do or do not have documentation.
These criticisms are treated as such in the following, because neither
religion nor science flourishes when misinformation goes unchallenged.
Meaning: The constitutional authority for ‘separation' in church-state
separation has two historical foundations. First, the concept of keeping
religion separate from the mundane and morally compromised machinations of
politics in government in order to protect the purity of religion has a
long theological tradition. Roger Williams, the founder of the Rhode Island
colony, took this position in his Queries of Highest Consideration (1644)
and in his arguments with the civil authorities of the Massachusetts Bay
Company.221
Second, the idea that civil government should be separate from
proselytizing clergy and the political aspirations of ecclesiastical
authorities was not a new idea in the 1790s. John Locke supported this
concept of separation. He was one of the most widely read political
theorists of his day, and his writings had a significant influence on the
thinking of the founders of this country.222 In regard to the authority of
the clergy, Locke wrote in 1688, "... it [the ecclesiastical authority]
ought to be confined within the bounds of the church, nor can it in any
manner be extended to civil affairs, because the church itself is a thing
absolutely separate and distinct from the commonwealth. The boundaries on
both sides are fixed and immovable."223 Another writer with a perspective
similar to Locke's was Marquis de Condorcet, a French intellectual whom
Thomas Jefferson most likely read when he was in France as the United
State's representative from 1785 to 1789. In 1786, Condorcet wrote, "The
interest of the princes was not to seek to regulate religion, but to
separate religion from the state, to leave to the priests the freedom of
sacraments, censures, ecclesiastical functions; but not to give any civil
effect to any of their decisions, not to give them any influence over
marriages or over birth or death certificates; not to allow them to
intervene in any civil or political acts ..."224
Both reasons for separation, the state from religious institutions as
Williams would have it, and clergy from the state as Condorcet and Locke
argued, were reflected in the writings of important founders of our
government.
"For Madison and Jefferson, freedom of conscience meant the freedom to
exercise religious liberty [as an individual] – to worship or not, to
support a church or not, to profess belief or disbelief – without suffering
civil penalties or incapacity. It had nothing to do with a right to choose
one's beliefs," because, according to Jefferson, "the opinion and beliefs
of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence
proposed to their own minds."225 According to Jefferson and Madison, this
goal for religious freedom was best achieved by the means of church-state
separation. For example, James Madison, the architect of the Constitution,
wrote in 1785 that religion is "... not within the cognizance of civil
government. ... the general government is proscribed from interfering, in
any manner whatever, in matters respecting religion."226 As the First
Amendment scholar Leonard Levy notes, Madison "led the fight in Virginia
against the ‘general assessment' bill of 1784, which would have imposed
taxes to subsidize religion. ... Madison opposed ... any kind of
establishment of religion, no matter how inclusive or exclusive. ... he
shared Jefferson's belief in a high wall of separation. Madison spoke of a
‘perfect separation' and believed that ‘religion and Government will exist
in greater purity, without ... the aid of government.' "227
In 1789, George Washington wrote that he "... would labor zealously ...to
establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and
every species of religious persecution."228 Also in 1789, the Constitution
of the United States was adopted with no reference to God, a radical act
for the day, that separated any suggestion of religious authority from the
foundational document of the United States government. Finally, various
drafts for the wording for the First Amendment were debated by Congress
before the proposed draft was sent to the states for ratifications in 1789.
All 13 state legislatures approved the wording of the First Amendment
before it became part of the Constitution on December 15, 1791.229
In summary, not only were both reasons for separation known at the time;
we have evidence that those ideas were expressed by the Founders of the
United States government in their various writings, and these ideas were
discussed in all 13 state legislatures. In brief, freedom of religion
guaranteed in the First Amendment needed the prohibition of the
Establishment Clause, and for this clause to be realized in practice, it
required separating not only state from church but also church from state.
This meaning of the Establishment Clause was understood by the founders.
Given this historical record, President Jefferson's famously expressed
position that there was a "wall of separation between church and state"230
is likely a fair reflection of the sentiments of the majority of the state
and federal legislators who voted to adopt the First Amendment in 1791.
221. For a fuller discussion of this rationale for separation, see
Hamburger, Philip, Separation of Church and State (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 2002) pp. 21-60.
222. Isaason, Walter, "Benjamin Franklin Joins the Revolution,"
Smithsonian, August 2003, p.86.
223. Locke, John, "A Letter Concerning Toleration," The Second
Treatise of Civil Government and a Letter Concerning Toleration (Great
Britain: Basil, Blackwell Oxford, 1940) p.135.
224. Hamburger, Philip, Separation of Church and State (Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 2002), p. 60.
225. Madison, James, "A Memorial and Remonstrance," General
Assembly of the commonwealth of Virginia, June 20, 1785, p. 1. See
www.ku.edu/carrie/docs/texts/memorial.htm; Sandel, Michael J., Democracy's
Discontents: America in Search of a Public Philosophy (Cambridge, MA:
Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1996), p. 65.
226. Madison, James, "A Memorial and Remonstrance," General
Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, June 20, 1785.
227. Levy, Leonard W., Origins of the Bill of Rights, (New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press, 1999) pp. 85-86
228. Dreisbach, Daniel L., Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of
Separation between Church and State (New York, NY: New York University
Press, 2002) p. 84.
229. For a fuller discussion of this process see Levy, Leonard W.,
Origins of the Bill of Rights, (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,
1999).
230. In Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists of January 1,
1802, he wrote, "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies
solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his
faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach
actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that
act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature
should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between
Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the
nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere
satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man
all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to
his social duties."
231. Frost, J. William, A Perfect Freedom: Religious Liberty in
Pennsylvania, (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1991) p. 75.
232. Federal Courts: United States Supreme Court and lower federal
court decisions which have upheld the concept of separation of church and
state in their interpretations of the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment include: Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education, 333
U.S. 203 (1948) (preventing religious instruction on school property during
school day); Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) (proscribing nonsectarian
prayer at beginning of school day); Abington School District v. Schempp,
374 U.S. 203 (1963) (enjoining Bible reading before class); Epperson v.
Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968) (invalidating statute prohibiting the teaching
of evolution in state-funded schools); Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)
(prohibiting posting copy of Ten Commandments on classroom wall); Wallace
v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985) (enjoining daily moment of silence for
public school classrooms); Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987)
(invalidating requirement to teach "creation science"); Lee v. Weisman, 505
U.S. 577 (1992) (striking down prayer at public school graduation
ceremonies); Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290
(2000) (striking down school policy allowing student-led prayer at start of
school football games); Roberts v. Madigan, 921 F.2d 1047 (10th Cir. 1990)
(prohibiting religiously oriented books placed in a classroom library and
teachers silently reading the Bible during classroom hours); Doe v.
Duncanville Independent School District, 986 F.2d 953 (5th Cir. 1993)
(prohibiting basketball coach from sponsoring prayer at end of games and
practices); and Berger v. Rensselaer Central School Corporation, 982 F.2d
1160 (7th Cir. 1993) (enjoining religious organizations' distributing
Bibles in classrooms.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nathan A. Barclay" |
|
| Title: Re: Buckeye, I'd like you to meet Mr. Madison |
17 Aug 2004 02:06:50 AM |
|
|
I agree that Jefferson's "wall of separation" metaphor was a good one. But
a wall is a wall, not a bulldozer with which government can use its power to
tax and spend to move into people's lives and push organized religion out of
the way. The only way government can involve itself in children's lives
during school hours without crossing the wall of separation is to respect
the fact that there are also legitimate religious interests in children's
lives during school hours and to ensure that its actions do not
significantly damage those religious interests.
A voucher system recognizes that reality, with government funding schools
based on their educational value without regard to religious considerations
and regulating only secular aspects of the schools. Government gets
involved for purposes on its own side of the wall in an effort to improve
the quality of children's education but leaves religious aspects of
children's lives during school hours outside its cognizance.
In contrast, a system that funds only nonreligious schools crosses the wall
of separation in order to yank essentially all organized activities in
children's lives during school hours over to the state side of the wall. In
the process, organized religion gets shoved out of the way. If people
protect their religious freedom against that power grab, they are denied
benefits costing thousands of dollars per year per child, and in fact
costing considerably more than I'm paying for my house for the education of
two children over a thirteen-year (K-12) period. Such behavior does not
leave religious aspects of children's lives during school hours outside
government's cognizance, which was what Madison deemed proper, but rather
places religious aspects of children's lives during school hours squarely
and directly within government's cognizance.
Therein lies the fallacy of the idea that church and state can never, under
any circumstances, be involved with the same organization: it forces people
to choose between the two. People can practice their religion as they see
fit only by giving up government benefits, and can receive government
benefits only by giving up their freedom to practice their religion as they
see fit. Since government has the power to tax but religion does not,
forcing people to choose between church and state in such a manner
inevitably leads to financial injustices that rival the very worst that
existed in the era of Madison and Jefferson. So where a high, strong wall
of separation can protect both church and state, the bulldozer instead
damages the church in order to make more room for the state.
And yes, under the principles of Madison and Jefferson, bribing people not
to engage in religious activities has to be regarded as a form of damage.
Further, you cannot legitimately argue that religion is not damaged because
it is healthy in other respects any more legitimately than I could cut off
one of your hands and argue that you are not damaged because the rest of
your body is healthy.
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:in7vh01hd05luf6erqqm0pvcl1ukk21t9u@4ax.com...
"Nathan A. Barclay" <nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:
Church-State Separation:
A Keystone to Peace
Clark Moeller, January 2004 --
[Copyright 2004, Pennsylvania Alliance for Democracy -- Printing, copying
and distribution is encouraged with full attribution.]
APPENDICES
Criticisms of the 'Church-State Separation' Concept
http://padnet.org/CSS2/CSS2AppdxCrit.html
APPENDICES
Criticisms of the 'Church-State Separation' Concept
Three common criticisms of church-state separation include the complaints
that the meaning of the Establishment Clause does not imply the concept of
separation of church from state, none of the separation phrases such as
'church-state separation' are found in the language of the First
Amendment,
and America has been and continues to be a Christian nation. These
criticisms are not based on the revealed truths of religion, but rather
rest on historical claims which either do or do not have documentation.
These criticisms are treated as such in the following, because neither
religion nor science flourishes when misinformation goes unchallenged.
Meaning: The constitutional authority for 'separation' in church-state
separation has two historical foundations. First, the concept of keeping
religion separate from the mundane and morally compromised machinations of
politics in government in order to protect the purity of religion has a
long theological tradition. Roger Williams, the founder of the Rhode
Island
colony, took this position in his Queries of Highest Consideration (1644)
and in his arguments with the civil authorities of the Massachusetts Bay
Company.221
Second, the idea that civil government should be separate from
proselytizing clergy and the political aspirations of ecclesiastical
authorities was not a new idea in the 1790s. John Locke supported this
concept of separation. He was one of the most widely read political
theorists of his day, and his writings had a significant influence on the
thinking of the founders of this country.222 In regard to the authority of
the clergy, Locke wrote in 1688, "... it [the ecclesiastical authority]
ought to be confined within the bounds of the church, nor can it in any
manner be extended to civil affairs, because the church itself is a thing
absolutely separate and distinct from the commonwealth. The boundaries on
both sides are fixed and immovable."223 Another writer with a perspective
similar to Locke's was Marquis de Condorcet, a French intellectual whom
Thomas Jefferson most likely read when he was in France as the United
State's representative from 1785 to 1789. In 1786, Condorcet wrote, "The
interest of the princes was not to seek to regulate religion, but to
separate religion from the state, to leave to the priests the freedom of
sacraments, censures, ecclesiastical functions; but not to give any civil
effect to any of their decisions, not to give them any influence over
marriages or over birth or death certificates; not to allow them to
intervene in any civil or political acts ..."224
Both reasons for separation, the state from religious institutions as
Williams would have it, and clergy from the state as Condorcet and Locke
argued, were reflected in the writings of important founders of our
government.
"For Madison and Jefferson, freedom of conscience meant the freedom to
exercise religious liberty [as an individual] - to worship or not, to
support a church or not, to profess belief or disbelief - without
suffering
civil penalties or incapacity. It had nothing to do with a right to choose
one's beliefs," because, according to Jefferson, "the opinion and beliefs
of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence
proposed to their own minds."225 According to Jefferson and Madison, this
goal for religious freedom was best achieved by the means of church-state
separation. For example, James Madison, the architect of the Constitution,
wrote in 1785 that religion is "... not within the cognizance of civil
government. ... the general government is proscribed from interfering, in
any manner whatever, in matters respecting religion."226 As the First
Amendment scholar Leonard Levy notes, Madison "led the fight in Virginia
against the 'general assessment' bill of 1784, which would have imposed
taxes to subsidize religion. ... Madison opposed ... any kind of
establishment of religion, no matter how inclusive or exclusive. ... he
shared Jefferson's belief in a high wall of separation. Madison spoke of a
'perfect separation' and believed that 'religion and Government will exist
in greater purity, without ... the aid of government.' "227
In 1789, George Washington wrote that he "... would labor zealously ...to
establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and
every species of religious persecution."228 Also in 1789, the Constitution
of the United States was adopted with no reference to God, a radical act
for the day, that separated any suggestion of religious authority from the
foundational document of the United States government. Finally, various
drafts for the wording for the First Amendment were debated by Congress
before the proposed draft was sent to the states for ratifications in
1789.
All 13 state legislatures approved the wording of the First Amendment
before it became part of the Constitution on December 15, 1791.229
In summary, not only were both reasons for separation known at the
time;
we have evidence that those ideas were expressed by the Founders of the
United States government in their various writings, and these ideas were
discussed in all 13 state legislatures. In brief, freedom of religion
guaranteed in the First Amendment needed the prohibition of the
Establishment Clause, and for this clause to be realized in practice, it
required separating not only state from church but also church from state.
This meaning of the Establishment Clause was understood by the founders.
Given this historical record, President Jefferson's famously expressed
position that there was a "wall of separation between church and state"230
is likely a fair reflection of the sentiments of the majority of the state
and federal legislators who voted to adopt the First Amendment in 1791.
221. For a fuller discussion of this rationale for separation, see
Hamburger, Philip, Separation of Church and State (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 2002) pp. 21-60.
222. Isaason, Walter, "Benjamin Franklin Joins the Revolution,"
Smithsonian, August 2003, p.86.
223. Locke, John, "A Letter Concerning Toleration," The Second
Treatise of Civil Government and a Letter Concerning Toleration (Great
Britain: Basil, Blackwell Oxford, 1940) p.135.
224. Hamburger, Philip, Separation of Church and State (Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 2002), p. 60.
225. Madison, James, "A Memorial and Remonstrance," General
Assembly of the commonwealth of Virginia, June 20, 1785, p. 1. See
www.ku.edu/carrie/docs/texts/memorial.htm; Sandel, Michael J., Democracy's
Discontents: America in Search of a Public Philosophy (Cambridge, MA:
Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1996), p. 65.
226. Madison, James, "A Memorial and Remonstrance," General
Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, June 20, 1785.
227. Levy, Leonard W., Origins of the Bill of Rights, (New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press, 1999) pp. 85-86
228. Dreisbach, Daniel L., Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of
Separation between Church and State (New York, NY: New York University
Press, 2002) p. 84.
229. For a fuller discussion of this process see Levy, Leonard W.,
Origins of the Bill of Rights, (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,
1999).
230. In Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists of January 1,
1802, he wrote, "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies
solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his
faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach
actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that
act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature
should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting
the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between
Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the
nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere
satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man
all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to
his social duties."
231. Frost, J. William, A Perfect Freedom: Religious Liberty in
Pennsylvania, (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1991) p. 75.
232. Federal Courts: United States Supreme Court and lower federal
court decisions which have upheld the concept of separation of church and
state in their interpretations of the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment include: Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education, 333
U.S. 203 (1948) (preventing religious instruction on school property
during
school day); Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) (proscribing
nonsectarian
prayer at beginning of school day); Abington School District v. Schempp,
374 U.S. 203 (1963) (enjoining Bible reading before class); Epperson v.
Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968) (invalidating statute prohibiting the
teaching
of evolution in state-funded schools); Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)
(prohibiting posting copy of Ten Commandments on classroom wall); Wallace
v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985) (enjoining daily moment of silence for
public school classrooms); Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987)
(invalidating requirement to teach "creation science"); Lee v. Weisman,
505
U.S. 577 (1992) (striking down prayer at public school graduation
ceremonies); Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290
(2000) (striking down school policy allowing student-led prayer at start
of
school football games); Roberts v. Madigan, 921 F.2d 1047 (10th Cir. 1990)
(prohibiting religiously oriented books placed in a classroom library and
teachers silently reading the Bible during classroom hours); Doe v.
Duncanville Independent School District, 986 F.2d 953 (5th Cir. 1993)
(prohibiting basketball coach from sponsoring prayer at end of games and
practices); and Berger v. Rensselaer Central School Corporation, 982 F.2d
1160 (7th Cir. 1993) (enjoining religious organizations' distributing
Bibles in classrooms.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Buckeye, I'd like you to meet Mr. Madison |
25 Aug 2004 06:06:13 AM |
|
|
"Nathan A. Barclay" <nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:
:|
:|I agree
Who cares? What you agree with or don't agree with is completely
irrelevant.
:|that Jefferson's "wall of separation" metaphor was a good one.
Rehnquist disagrees with you. What you agree with is meaningless.
Unfortunately what Rehnquist agrees or disagrees with isn't so meaningless.
Now this is a real interesting situation.
You agree Jefferson's metaphors is a good one, Rehnquist don't yet it is
because Rehnquist doesn't agree that forms the foundation of his ruling in
Mueller, v. Allen and Zelman v Harris-Simmons.
Don't you find that interesting?
:|But
Ahhhhh, a but. Do you realize what but says in a sentence? It says
disregard all that I said before the butt.
So, in fact, you don't agree that Jefferson's metaphors is a good one after
all.
:|a wall is a wall, not a bulldozer with which government can use its power to
:|tax and spend to move into people's lives and push organized religion out of
:|the way.
You got it backwards, as usual.
First of all we are talking history here not your biased unqualified agenda
driven barclayism propaganda.
Second, deal with this:
[You had said]
:|The real root of the disconnect is that you ask, "What
:|kinds of dangers were men like Madison and Jefferson reacting against two
:|centuries ago?" while I ask, "What arguments did men like Madison and
:|Jefferson use, and what is the best way to apply those arguments to the
:|current situation?"
Actually, that really hasn't been my question all that much.
However, what you fail to grasp is that question is a valid question, one
that is frequently asked by the courts as well, in our modern time period.
If you have any doubts about that, I suggest you read Flast v. Cohen. 392
US 83 (1968).
Title: Flast v. Cohen
US Citation: 392 U.S. 83 (1968)
Docket: 416
Events: Argued - March 12, 1968
Decided - June 10, 1968
Subjects: Judicial Power: Standing to Sue, Taxpayer's Suit
Facts: Florence Flast and a group of taxpayers challenged federal
legislation that financed the purchase of secular textbooks for use in
religious schools. Flast argued that such use of tax money violated the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. A district court held that the
federal courts should defer when confronted with taxpayer suits directed
against federal spending programs.
Question Presented: Did Flast, as a taxpayer, have standing to sue the
government's spending program?
Conclusion: In an 8-to-1 decision, the Court rejected the government's
argument that the constitutional scheme of separation of powers barred
taxpayer suits against federal taxing and spending programs. In order to
prove a "requisite personal stake" in such cases, taxpayers had to 1)
establish a logical link between their status as taxpayers and the type of
legislative enactment attacked, and 2) show the challenged enactment
exceeded specific constitutional limitations imposed upon the exercise of
Congressional taxing and spending power. The Court held that Flast had met
both parts of the test.
Justices: Hugo L. Black - (Majority) Associate justice
William O. Douglas - (Regular Concurrence) Associate justice, wrote an
opinion
Earl Warren - (Majority) Chief justice, wrote an opinion
John M. Harlan - (Dissent) Associate justice, wrote an opinion
William J. Brennan, Jr. - (Majority) Associate justice
Potter Stewart - (Regular Concurrence) Associate justice, wrote an opinion
Byron R. White - (Majority) Associate justice
Abe Fortas - (Regular Concurrence) Associate justice, wrote an opinion
Thurgood Marshall - (Majority) Associate justice
Advocates: Erwin Griswold - Solicitor General, argued the cause for
the appellees
Leo Pfeffer - argued the cause for the appellants
Sam J. Ervin, Jr. - argued the cause for Americans for Public Schools et
al., as amici curiae, urging reversal
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to 1968 and Flast v Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968) taxpayers did not have
a right to challenge how the government spent tax monies in federal courts.
In Flast v Cohen, the court ruled that if it could be shown that one
portion of the constitution (taxing and spending powers) was being used to
violate another portion (Establishment clause) then that act would be
unconstitutional.
" Our history vividly illustrates that one of the specific evils feared by
those who drafted the Establishment clause. . . was that the taxing and
spending power would be used to favor one religion over another or to
support religion in general." Flast v Cohen.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guess what? That was important then and it is important today, even more so
today since the radical religious right is pushing vouchers to (1) destroy
the public schools system (2) replace it with their brand of religious and
segregated schools. (3) get religion subsidized and supported by public
funds via the schools which sets precedence to be used to wedge more and
more of the church state separation "wall" down thus forming official
unions legal between church and state, hence establishing their religion.
With the increase of Catholics, members of other religions and increase of
religions in general, with more and more people finding non traditional
spiritual paths the traditional WASP is feeling threatened and feels a need
to establish legally as many unions between her/his traditional beliefs and
the government as possible.
It's about power (money), it has always been about power (money)
With the above goes this:
Short General History of The Federal Government and Education
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/educ.htm
Historical Data Against "Vouchers"
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/vouchist.htm
Now the above is history, legal history and factual history.
Pay attention here, history is the topic.
[snipped the off topic biased unqualified agenda driven barclayism
propaganda.]
:| Since government has the power to tax but religion does not,
:|forcing people to choose between church and state in such a manner
:|inevitably leads to financial injustices that rival the very worst that
:|existed in the era of Madison and Jefferson. So where a high, strong wall
:|of separation can protect both church and state, the bulldozer instead
:|damages the church in order to make more room for the state.
Your ignorance of church state separation that Madison and Jefferson, as
well as many others, sought is totally mind boggling.
Deal with this history:
When we turn from religions liberty to the repudiation of: special
state aid, we enter a more. complicated area. That section of Puritanism
which championed religious liberty in the seventeenth century had divided
into, a right and left wing as regards the relation. of the church to the
state, a division which was important; in Witherspoon's day and also in
ours.
The left wing held for a rigid separation of church and state,
based on a theological compartmentalization of the spheres of creation (or
nature) and of redemption (or grace) The state belonged to the sphere of
nature and was to be shaped solely by natural law with no regard for
Scripture or church. There could he no such thing as a "Christian state."
There should be no religious tests for the franchise and no ecclesiastical
intervention in political matters. The state, on the other hand, most
respect the sphere of the church and redemption as outside its
jurisdiction. Such was the scheme of Roger Williams in Rhode Island, and
of John Lilburne and John Goodwin in Old England. This became the main
stream of Baptist thought in England and the colonies and has remained so
ever since.
A different but equally important pattern of thought had emerged at
the Westminister Assembly, especially m the manifesto of the Congregational
minority there. It was actually put into effect in the 1650's by Cromwell,
but was then of course rejected at the Restoration of the Stuarts and the
old episcopal establishment. Like the separationists, this scheme fervently
supported religious liberty. Cromwell's regime gave greater scope to
religious liberty than any other major European state previously had done.
But this tradition refused to give up the notion of the bearing of
Christian revelation on political life. Cromwell conceived his government
to be generically Christian, but without giving state aid to any
ecclesiastic constitution preferentially. As he administered the pariah
system, benefices were held by ministers of Congregational, Presbyterian,
Baptist and Episcopal persuasions indifferently. To this extent it was
multiple establishments, based on the novel conception of a number of
equal and independent denominations cooperating to shape Christian nation.
The state represented all collectively and equally on the basis of what
was called "the common light of Christianity,
The state constitutions of Massachusetts, Connecticut, New
Hampshire and Maryland represented substantially this position in the
1780's. Public provision conld be made for school teachers and religious
ministrations or whatever denomination the several towns might wish and in
some eases at least, dissenting minorities were exempt from taxation.
Nearly half of the states of the new republic maintained multiple
establishments of this general type and the Congress provided something of
the sane sort for the Northwest Territory of of which Five mid-Western
states have since been erected
In Virginia, on the other hand where the Anglican establishment
bad been less generous to dissenters than the Congregationalists of New
England, it was rather the radical separationist view which triumphed under
the leadership of Madison and Jefferson. And this Virginia struggle was
the immediate background of the drafting of the First Amendment.
Where do the American Presbyterians fit into this picture? Although
they rejected state support or church ministrations their general outlook
seems still to have been that of the Cromwellian "common light of
Christianity." If we are to take Witherspoon's lectures on moral philosophy
as a commentary on his preface to the Form of Government, the repudiation
of special state aid does not imply a strict separationism of the Roger
Williams or Baptist type. Whereas it is one of the most important duties of
the civil magistrate to protect the rights of conscience, he is also, m
Witherspoon's view duty bound to punish profanity and impiety. He should
encourage piety by his own example, attending to public and private
worship, avoiding swearing and blasphemy.(5) In Witherspoon's mind, the
state was still called to give aid to Christianity in general in these
ways. It was not expected to be neutral as between the religious and the
irreligious. And, in. his discussions of the system of state aidfor public
worship suiting the great body of citizens with full liberty for
dissenters, Witherspoon observes mildly, "there is much reason for this"
Clearly Witherspoon's devotion to the mechanism of separation is vastly
less intense than air commitment to religious liberty. The main point is to
secure freedom and non-preferential treatment for all religious bodies and
views. Separation was valued, not as an end in itself, but, as a means to
the end of religions liberty.
Footnote:
(5) Lectures on Moral Philosophy (ed. Collins), pp. 111-13.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: John Witherspoon on Church and State, by James
Hastings Nichols. JOURNAL OF PRESBYTERIAN HISTORY, 42, (1964)
pp 171-73)
===================================================
You want history, here is history:
In Europe and in the Colonies the Churches used the govt. to force citizens
to support the majority religion of the area, colony, state, nation,. In
America since there were some colonies that had no "established" religion,
some who had one "established" religion, sort of in the European style, and
other colonies that had multiple "establishments" some places required only
that citizens support religion in general.
This was viewed as an evil, as tyranny
Hence:
This document
A Bill Establishing a Provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion
(1784)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/assessb.htm
was proposed in 1784 in Virginia. It had some solid backers, like Patrick
Henry. James Madison played some politics to get the bill tabled till the
next session of the Virginia Legislature, thus enabling him to write the
following (one of the things Madison did during this period was help
Patrick Henry get elected governor of Virginia, thus removing Henry's
considerable oratory skills from the Virginia legislature during this
crucial period.)
James Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance (June,1785)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/memorial.htm
which along with other such writings from others help whip up opposition to
the Henry bill.
This in turn led to the defeat of the Henry bill and passage of the
following bill:
Jefferson's Bill for Religious Freedom (Passed December, 1785)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/statute.htm
I suggest you study those bills, I further more suggest you get into the
writings of the principle parties involved and read there various letters
back and forth between the supporters and advocates.
Alexander Hamilton defined establishment of religion as the government
support and protection
of religion.
"Remarks on the Quebec Bill," in Hamilton Papers, 1:169-70.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
''[F]or the men who wrote the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment the
'establishment' of a religion connoted sponsorship, financial support, and
active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity."
http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment01/02.html#1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the eleven states that ratified the First Amendment, nine
(counting Maryland) adhered to the viewpoint that support of religion and
churches should be voluntary, that any government financial assistance to
religion constituted an establishment of religion and violated its free
exercise.(78) Some had done so from their earliest foundations; some
arrived at that stance after the American Revolution. The Maryland
constitution permitted a general assessment to support religion, but
Marylanders firmly rejected a proposal to enact one. Of the ratifying
states, only Vermont and New Hampshire adhered to the view that states
could or should provide for tax-supported religion. On a whole range of
other applications, however, Americans inherited traditions of government
interference in religious matters.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The First Freedoms, Church and State in America to
the Passage of the First Amendment. Thomas J. Curry. Oxford University
Press. (1986) pp 202 - 222)
===========================================================
" The First Amendment bans laws respecting an establishment of
religion. Most of the framers of that amendment very probably meant that
government should not promote, sponsor, or subsidize religion because it is
best left to private voluntary support for the sake of religion itself as
well as for government, and above all for the sake of the individual. Some
of the framers undoubtedly believed that government should maintain a close
relationship with religion, that is, with Protestantism, and that people
should support taxes for the benefit of their own churches and ministers.
The framers who came from Massachusetts and Connecticut certainly believed
this, as did the representatives of New Hampshire, but New Hampshire was
the only one of these New England states that ratified the First Amendment.
Of the eleven states that ratified the First Amendment, New Hampshire and
Vermont were probably the only ones in which a majority of the people
believed that the government should support religion. In all the other
ratifying states, a majority very probably opposed such support. But
whether those who framed and ratified the First Amendment believed in
government aid to religion or in its private voluntary support, the fact is
that no framer believed that the United States had or should have power to
legislate on the subject of religion, and no state supported that power
either."
(The Establishment Clause, Religion and the First Amendment, By Leonard W
Levy, page 146-147)
==========================================================
One could say that the following words were designed to prevent that very
thing:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,..."
That the above words would prevent any supporting, be it financial or
non-financial, and protection of any religion, sect, religious society,
denomination, etc. It would not hinder religion but would not aid it
either.
=============================================================
======================================================
A Bill Establishing a Provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion
(1784)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/assessb.htm
James Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance (June,1785)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/memorial.htm
Jefferson's Bill for Religious Freedom (Passed December, 1785)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/statute.htm
Excerpts from James Madison's Detached Memoranda (written after 1817)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/detach.htm
Issue Related Historical Data
Historical Data Against "Vouchers"
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/vouchist.htm
AND MORE HISTORY YOU COULDN'T DEAL WITH.
********************************************************
(Excerpt from) THE EXCESS OF CIVIL POWER EXPLODED.
****A general assessment, (forcing all to pay some preacher,) amounts to
an establishment; if government says I must pay somebody, it must next
describe that somebody, his doctrine and place of abode. That moment a
minister is so fixed as to receive a stipend by legal force, that moment he
ceases to be a gospel ambassador, and becomes a minister of state. This
emolument is a temptation too great for avaricious men to withstand. This
doctrine turns the gospel into merchandise, and sinks religion upon a level
with other things.
As it is not the province of civil government to establish forms of
religion, and force a maintenance for the preachers, so it does not belong
to that power to establish fixed holy days for divine worship. (The
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Virginia Chronicle, by Rev. John Leland, 1790. The
Writings of John Leland, Edited by L.F. Greene, Arno Press & The New York
Times N Y (1969) pp.91-124) Originally published as: The Writings Of The
Late Elder John Leland Including Some Events In His Life, Written By
Himself, With Additional Sketches &c. By Miss L.F. Greene, Lanesboro, Mass.
New York Printed By G.W. Wood, 29 Gold Street, 1845)
*********************************************************
PART 9
Subject: religion/education/taxes/early America
No clearer statement could be made to show that the principle of
separation of church and state as defined in the Everson case is in direct
line with the historic meaning of the separation of church and state in
America. In general, the process whereby the principle of complete
"co-operation" of church and state has been replaced by the principle of
complete separation of church and state has involved four historical steps:
(1) Revolutionary and Early National Period
In order to protect the civil rights of the citizens of the several
states, the bills of rights of most of the early state constitutions
separated church from state by prohibiting the states from making single or
multiple establishments of religion.
(2) Early National Period
In order to protect the civil rights of the citizen of the United
States, the First Amendment of the Constitution separated church from state
by prohibiting the federal government from making single or multiple
establishments of religion. The states followed suit in their own
constitutions.
(3) Reconstruction Period
In order to protect the civil rights of citizens of the United
States from infringement by the several states, the Fourteenth Amendment
made the First Amendment applicable to the states and thus prohibited the
states from infringing the equal rights of conscience and freedom of
speech, press, assembly, and petition as defined by the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court so interpreted the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment
when cases began to come to it in the twentieth century.
(4) Late Nineteenth Century to the Present
The Supreme Court gradually brought its decisions of the last fifty
years into line with the intent of Madison and the framers of the First and
Fourteenth Amendments. In order to protect the civil rights of all American
citizens, the federal government has the right to enforce separation of
church and state upon the several states by prohibiting single or multiple
establishments of religion in the states. As indicated throughout this
study, "establishment of religion" has always implied legal and financial
support for religion. State support for one or for many religions, whether
preferentially or impartially, is thus prohibited. Far from being a
perversion of the original meaning of separation, the principle enunciated
in the Everson case is the logical culmination of the authentic historical
tradition of the principle of separation of church and state as it has
developed from 1776 to the present time."
Despite the clarity of the principle of separation of church and
state as expressed in this authentic historical tradition, there have been
many practices continued which are in effect holdovers from the
pre-separation days of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. These
practices include religious phraseology in several state constitutions, the
appointment and payment of chaplains for Congress, for the armed forces,
and for certain penal and charitable institutions, tax exemptions for
religious institutions, religious exercises at official ceremonies, and
certain requirements for religious oaths and tests for officeholders of a
few state governments. The weight of evidence indicates that these
practices are exceptions to the principle of separation of church and state
rather than practices which prove the principle of "co-operation" between
church and state. The principle is clearly "separation" and not
"co-operation."
(The American Tradition in Religion and Education, by R. Freeman Butts,
Greenwood Press, Publishers, Westport, Conn. (1974--Originally published by
The Beacon Press. Boston, 1950)
p 107-108)
******************************************************
PART 10
Subject: religion/education/taxes/early America
In its most general form the principle of separation of church and state
came to embrace these two propositions:
(1) Public funds shall not be granted to religious schools
(2) Sectarian religious instruction shall not be given in public schools.
(The American Tradition in Religion and Education, by R. Freeman Butts,
Greenwood Press, Publishers, Westport, Conn. (1974--Originally published by
The Beacon Press. Boston, 1950)
p 108)
*****************************************************
PART 11
Subject: religion/education/taxes/early America
THE PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION APPLIED TO EDUCATION
From Establishment From Sectarian Schools to
to Separation Secular Schools
I. "Co-operation" between 1. Sectarian religious public schools
church and state with (public support for the established
no religious freedom religion)
(Single establishment; 2. Dissenters' schools not permitted
no free exercise)
II. "Co-operation" between
church and state with
some religious freedom
A. Single establishment; 1. Sectarian religious public schools
free exercise (public support for the
established religion)
2. Private sectarian religious
schools permitted (private support
for the dissenting religions)
3. Private secular schools
permitted (private support)
B. Multiple establish- 1. Non-sectarian religious public
ment; free exercise schools (public support for the
Protestant religion)
2. Private sectarian religious
schools permitted (private and
public support)
3. Private secular schools permitted
(private and public support)
111. Separation of church I. Secular public school (public
and state (No establishment; funds)
complete religious free- 2. Private sectarian schools per-
dom) mitted (private support but no
public funds)
3. Private secular schools per-
mitted (private support but no
public funds)
(The American Tradition in Religion and Education, by R. Freeman Butts,
Greenwood Press, Publishers, Westport, Conn. (1974--Originally published by
The Beacon Press. Boston, 1950)
p 113)
*******************************************************
The voucher issue has a very simple solution.
Private religious schools can establish mom religious school systems if
they are really interested in general education and helping the poor.
Doing that would completely remove any constitutional issues.
They don't want to do that. Why not? Because one of the primary functions
of their religious school system is indoctrinating the young in the
particular religious doctrines, dogmas, tenets of the supporting
religion/church.
In days of old, two systems existed to guarantee the continuation of the of
the power structure of the established church.
(1) Religious tests for public office
(2) The school systems
(3) Public financial support of religion was considered to be an
establishment of religion.
(4) What does Article VI, the end of paragraph III forbid?
(5) What does the wording of the establishment clause forbid?
Vouchers: Our Position
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/vouposit.htm
Study Guide for Vouchers
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd4.htm
Historical Data Against "Vouchers"
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/vouchist.htm
*********************************************
#1
Subject: religion/education/taxes/early America
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 14:06:45 -0500
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=kgafbtk11st0c1k23iho575mg5sa94c3l9%404ax.com&output=gplain
#2
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ngafbtougmt58uuai57qpt0guiv93k1gn5%404ax.com&output=gplain
#3
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=qgafbt8dduj6sq5dt7bmk5cm6i4dm8aqup%404ax.com&output=gplain
#4
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=sgafbtc3v817rohpdhj4kmai7k2n3joq9b%404ax.com&output=gplain
#5
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=vgafbts092n46vq3f2cc6vbq8f78tgbe70%404ax.com&output=gplain
#6
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1hafbt0cuhno58j7u9vpcuape484a13bgi%404ax.com&output=gplain
#7
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=4hafbto1mpqjkrep27kmqrqk3ics9v8rm6%404ax.com&output=gplain
#8
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6hafbt0tts24bp5n32j8avujet2rdjf50o%404ax.com&output=gplain
#9
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8hafbt4rsugsud0vr9tcnh12au336mvl49%404ax.com&output=gplain
#10
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=bhafbtc0pbvpseo1f9rlfc0buau5gn5qvv%404ax.com&output=gplain
#11
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=lhafbt8ia91amju98poe52a609lnaj4che%404ax.com&output=g
**********************************************************
AND MORE HISTORY:
Church-State Separation:
A Keystone to Peace
Clark Moeller, January 2004 --
[Copyright 2004, Pennsylvania Alliance for Democracy -- Printing, copying
and distribution is encouraged with full attribution.]
APPENDICES
Criticisms of the ‘Church-State Separation' Concept
http://padnet.org/CSS2/CSS2AppdxCrit.html
APPENDICES
Criticisms of the ‘Church-State Separation' Concept
Three common criticisms of church-state separation include the complaints
that the meaning of the Establishment Clause does not imply the concept of
separation of church from state, none of the separation phrases such as
‘church-state separation' are found in the language of the First Amendment,
and America has been and continues to be a Christian nation. These
criticisms are not based on the revealed truths of religion, but rather
rest on historical claims which either do or do not have documentation.
These criticisms are treated as such in the following, because neither
religion nor science flourishes when misinformation goes unchallenged.
Meaning: The constitutional authority for ‘separation' in church-state
separation has two historical foundations. First, the concept of keeping
religion separate from the mundane and morally compromised machinations of
politics in government in order to protect the purity of religion has a
long theological tradition. Roger Williams, the founder of the Rhode Island
colony, took this position in his Queries of Highest Consideration (1644)
and in his arguments with the civil authorities of the Massachusetts Bay
Company.221
Second, the idea that civil government should be separate from
proselytizing clergy and the political aspirations of ecclesiastical
authorities was not a new idea in the 1790s. John Locke supported this
concept of separation. He was one of the most widely read political
theorists of his day, and his writings had a significant influence on the
thinking of the founders of this country.222 In regard to the authority of
the clergy, Locke wrote in 1688, "... it [the ecclesiastical authority]
ought to be confined within the bounds of the church, nor can it in any
manner be extended to civil affairs, because the church itself is a thing
absolutely separate and distinct from the commonwealth. The boundaries on
both sides are fixed and immovable."223 Another writer with a perspective
similar to Locke's was Marquis de Condorcet, a French intellectual whom
Thomas Jefferson most likely read when he was in France as the United
State's representative from 1785 to 1789. In 1786, Condorcet wrote, "The
interest of the princes was not to seek to regulate religion, but to
separate religion from the state, to leave to the priests the freedom of
sacraments, censures, ecclesiastical functions; but not to give any civil
effect to any of their decisions, not to give them any influence over
marriages or over birth or death certificates; not to allow them to
intervene in any civil or political acts ..."224
Both reasons for separation, the state from religious institutions as
Williams would have it, and clergy from the state as Condorcet and Locke
argued, were reflected in the writings of important founders of our
government.
"For Madison and Jefferson, freedom of conscience meant the freedom to
exercise religious liberty [as an individual] – to worship or not, to
support a church or not, to profess belief or disbelief – without suffering
civil penalties or incapacity. It had nothing to do with a right to choose
one's beliefs," because, according to Jefferson, "the opinion and beliefs
of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence
proposed to their own minds."225 According to Jefferson and Madison, this
goal for religious freedom was best achieved by the means of church-state
separation. For example, James Madison, the architect of the Constitution,
wrote in 1785 that religion is "... not within the cognizance of civil
government. ... the general government is proscribed from interfering, in
any manner whatever, in matters respecting religion."226 As the First
Amendment scholar Leonard Levy notes, Madison "led the fight in Virginia
against the ‘general assessment' bill of 1784, which would have imposed
taxes to subsidize religion. ... Madison opposed ... any kind of
establishment of religion, no matter how inclusive or exclusive. ... he
shared Jefferson's belief in a high wall of separation. Madison spoke of a
‘perfect separation' and believed that ‘religion and Government will exist
in greater purity, without ... the aid of government.' "227
In 1789, George Washington wrote that he "... would labor zealously ...to
establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and
every species of religious persecution."228 Also in 1789, the Constitution
of the United States was adopted with no reference to God, a radical act
for the day, that separated any suggestion of religious authority from the
foundational document of the United States government. Finally, various
drafts for the wording for the First Amendment were debated by Congress
before the proposed draft was sent to the states for ratifications in 1789.
All 13 state legislatures approved the wording of the First Amendment
before it became part of the Constitution on December 15, 1791.229
In summary, not only were both reasons for separation known at the time;
we have evidence that those ideas were expressed by the Founders of the
United States government in their various writings, and these ideas were
discussed in all 13 state legislatures. In brief, freedom of religion
guaranteed in the First Amendment needed the prohibition of the
Establishment Clause, and for this clause to be realized in practice, it
required separating not only state from church but also church from state.
This meaning of the Establishment Clause was understood by the founders.
Given this historical record, President Jefferson's famously expressed
position that there was a "wall of separation between church and state"230
is likely a fair reflection of the sentiments of the majority of the state
and federal legislators who voted to adopt the First Amendment in 1791.
221. For a fuller discussion of this rationale for separation, see
Hamburger, Philip, Separation of Church and State (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 2002) pp. 21-60.
222. Isaason, Walter, "Benjamin Franklin Joins the Revolution,"
Smithsonian, August 2003, p.86.
223. Locke, John, "A Letter Concerning Toleration," The Second
Treatise of Civil Government and a Letter Concerning Toleration (Great
Britain: Basil, Blackwell Oxford, 1940) p.135.
224. Hamburger, Philip, Separation of Church and State (Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 2002), p. 60.
225. Madison, James, "A Memorial and Remonstrance," General
Assembly of the commonwealth of Virginia, June 20, 1785, p. 1. See
www.ku.edu/carrie/docs/texts/memorial.htm; Sandel, Michael J., Democracy's
Discontents: America in Search of a Public Philosophy (Cambridge, MA:
Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1996), p. 65.
226. Madison, James, "A Memorial and Remonstrance," General
Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, June 20, 1785.
227. Levy, Leonard W., Origins of the Bill of Rights, (New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press, 1999) pp. 85-86
228. Dreisbach, Daniel L., Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of
Separation between Church and State (New York, NY: New York University
Press, 2002) p. 84.
229. For a fuller discussion of this process see Levy, Leonard W.,
Origins of the Bill of Rights, (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,
1999).
230. In Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists of January 1,
1802, he wrote, "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies
solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his
faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach
actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that
act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature
should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between
Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the
nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere
satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man
all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to
his social duties."
231. Frost, J. William, A Perfect Freedom: Religious Liberty in
Pennsylvania, (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1991) p. 75.
232. Federal Courts: United States Supreme Court and lower federal
court decisions which have upheld the concept of separation of church and
state in their interpretations of the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment include: Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education, 333
U.S. 203 (1948) (preventing religious instruction on school property during
school day); Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) (proscribing nonsectarian
prayer at beginning of school day); Abington School District v. Schempp,
374 U.S. 203 (1963) (enjoining Bible reading before class); Epperson v.
Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968) (invalidating statute prohibiting the teaching
of evolution in state-funded schools); Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)
(prohibiting posting copy of Ten Commandments on classroom wall); Wallace
v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985) (enjoining daily moment of silence for
public school classrooms); Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987)
(invalidating requirement to teach "creation science"); Lee v. Weisman, 505
U.S. 577 (1992) (striking down prayer at public school graduation
ceremonies); Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290
(2000) (striking down school policy allowing student-led prayer at start of
school football games); Roberts v. Madigan, 921 F.2d 1047 (10th Cir. 1990)
(prohibiting religiously oriented books placed in a classroom library and
teachers silently reading the Bible during classroom hours); Doe v.
Duncanville Independent School District, 986 F.2d 953 (5th Cir. 1993)
(prohibiting basketball coach from sponsoring prayer at end of games and
practices); and Berger v. Rensselaer Central School Corporation, 982 F.2d
1160 (7th Cir. 1993) (enjoining religious organizations' distributing
Bibles in classrooms.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nathan A. Barclay" |
|
| Title: Re: Buckeye, I'd like you to meet Mr. Madison |
26 Aug 2004 03:22:24 AM |
|
|
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:s6soi0hsca4h449r2v6pq3k6aigccepar2@4ax.com...
"Nathan A. Barclay" <nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:
:|
:|I agree
Who cares? What you agree with or don't agree with is completely
irrelevant.
I wish I understood why you engage in this sort of deliberate rudeness. It
certainly does not contribute to a gain in knowledge.
I'm also curious as to whether or not there are people out there who do care
about what I'm saying. If not, I'm wasting my time here because Buckeye and
I disagree at too deep and fundamental level for either of us to have a
realistic chance of persuading the other.
:|that Jefferson's "wall of separation" metaphor was a good one.
Rehnquist disagrees with you. What you agree with is meaningless.
Unfortunately what Rehnquist agrees or disagrees with isn't so
meaningless.
Now this is a real interesting situation.
You agree Jefferson's metaphors is a good one, Rehnquist don't yet it is
because Rehnquist doesn't agree that forms the foundation of his ruling in
Mueller, v. Allen and Zelman v Harris-Simmons.
Don't you find that interesting?
Yes, I do, but it is also easily understood. When people object to the
metaphor, at least a large part of what they are objecting to is how the
metaphor is often used. In my case, I've looked at the metaphor, and at the
ways the metaphor is used, and I've reached the conclusion that the uses of
the metaphor that people have the strongest objections to do not fit the
nature of the metaphor itself.
A high, strong wall of separation between church and state must, of
necessity, prohibit government from intruding into religious matters. Thus,
any time government either increases OR REDUCES the role that religion plays
in people's lives, it crosses the wall of separation and interferes in
matters on the church side of the wall. Therefore, government policies that
deliberately make the exclusion of organized religious activities or
influences from an area of people's lives a condition for receiving
government benefits do not respect the wall of separation, but rather
violate it.
So when it comes to the voucher issue, Justice Rehnquist rejects the
metaphor itself, while I reject the interpretation of the metaphor as
demanding that government deliberately make the exclusion of organized
religion a condition for providing benefits. In practical terms, the two
viewpoints coincide on that particular issue, although they can lead to
different conclusions in regard to other issues. It would be interesting to
discuss my concept of the wall of separation with Justice Rehnquist and see
what he would have to say about it, but I seriously doubt that I'll ever get
the chance.
:|But
Ahhhhh, a but. Do you realize what but says in a sentence? It says
disregard all that I said before the butt.
This is just plain flat-out wrong. With the word "but," both the part that
comes before and the part that comes after are important in capturing the
entire meaning.
So, in fact, you don't agree that Jefferson's metaphors is a good one
after
all.
No, I agree that Jefferson's metaphor is a good one. But for the wall to
stand high and strong against all breaches, government money must not be
allowed to produce effects that change what roles religion plays in people's
lives. Such a wall is crossed and violated if government forces people to
accept limitations on their religious activities as a price for accepting
government benefits.
What you want is not a wall of separation between church and state, but
rather a means of demanding that churches either move out of government's
way or give up their members' right to a fair share of government benefits.
Such a system may create an illusion of being a wall of separation once it
has been in place for a while, becasue once religion is shoved out of the
way, the "wall" prevents religion from coming back in. But if you bother to
look at history, and examine how government actions have manipulated human
behavior patterns, it is easy to see that what we have does not match what a
high, strong wall of separation between church and state that keeps
government from intruding in religious aspects of people's lives would
produce.
With a high, strong wall of separation between church and state, the
expectation would be that religion will play as much or as little of a role
in children's lives during school hours as families want it to. The fact
that religion so often ends up playing a radically smaller role than
families prefer is prima facie evidence that what we have is not the product
of a high, strong wall of separation. Clearly, in the process of involving
itself in education, government has crossed the wall of separation and
intruded into matters that rightfully belong on the church side of the wall.
You want to portray me as if I had discarded the "wall of separation
metaphor" entirely, but the reality is that my views are generally
consistent with the "wall of separation" concept. I don't like the idea of
tax-funded congressional chaplains, and I view the existence of military
chaplains as a far less than ideal solution to a situation in which the only
options available are seriously flawed. I don't like the idea of religious
displays on public property. I don't want government passing laws regarding
moral issues for reasons that are primarily religious in nature. The idea
of government support for faith-based charities makes me extremely nervous
and uncomfortable because of the enormous potential for discrimination when
government explicitly decides which groups will be funded. And I don't
think government should take a stand regarding whether or not people say
"under God" as part of the Pledge of Allegiance. Are those views consistent
with what would be expected from someone who simply rejects the concept of a
wall of separation?
:|a wall is a wall, not a bulldozer with which government can use its
power to
:|tax and spend to move into people's lives and push organized religion
out of
:|the way.
You got it backwards, as usual.
Nice unsubstantiated claim here. You fail to provide even the slightest
basis for it. The historical reality is that public schools have had the
effect of displacing environments in which religion could play a larger,
more organized role in children's lives during school hours than the public
schools permit. That historical reality is the basis for my claim.
First of all we are talking history here not your biased unqualified
agenda
driven barclayism propaganda.
So talk some history. Show how children's lives were as devoid of organized
religous influences during school hours before public schools were
established as they are now when children attend public schools. My bet is
you can't.
Second, deal with this:
If you want to explain how some particular piece of information is directly
relevant to one of my points, I'm willing to listen. But I have no interest
in responding to floods of raw data for which you make not even the
slightest attempt to establish relevance to the particular point under
discussion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Buckeye, I'd like you to meet Mr. Madison |
26 Aug 2004 06:32:40 AM |
|
|
"Nathan A. Barclay" <nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:s6soi0hsca4h449r2v6pq3k6aigccepar2@4ax.com...
"Nathan A. Barclay" <nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:
:|
:|I agree
Who cares? What you agree with or don't agree with is completely
irrelevant.
I wish I understood why you engage in this sort of deliberate rudeness. It
certainly does not contribute to a gain in knowledge.
Because you are rude to keep on posting the same worthless arguments
unsupported by any LEGAL reasoning (i.e. based on court cases) or
historical reasoning (i.e. based on the methods of history, of which
you seem ignorant), and you've done so for years.
YOU may think you are writing something new, but the stuff you write
this week seems identical to what you wrote and which was answered 5
years ago.
I'm also curious as to whether or not there are people out there who do care
about what I'm saying.
I don't. The percentage of Usenet readers that read a article more
than 2 pages long is vanishingly small, so I doubt if many have even
read your rants, much less care about them.
If you want to explain how some particular piece of information is directly
relevant to one of my points, I'm willing to listen. But I have no interest
in responding to floods of raw data for which you make not even the
slightest attempt to establish relevance to the particular point under
discussion.
Your postings are floods of raw opinion for which you make not even
the slightest attempt to establish relevance to LAW, which is the
topic which you appear to be addressing. LAW is what is done by
Congress, courts and lawyers, NOT what is done by random uninformed
Usenet posters with ideological opinions.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nathan A. Barclay" |
|
| Title: Re: Buckeye, I'd like you to meet Mr. Madison |
26 Aug 2004 05:14:25 PM |
|
|
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:q5iri0hntafo1v5vddqbnagff312c0os44@4ax.com...
"Nathan A. Barclay" <nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:s6soi0hsca4h449r2v6pq3k6aigccepar2@4ax.com...
"Nathan A. Barclay" <nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:
:|
:|I agree
Who cares? What you agree with or don't agree with is completely
irrelevant.
I wish I understood why you engage in this sort of deliberate rudeness.
It
certainly does not contribute to a gain in knowledge.
Because you are rude to keep on posting the same worthless arguments
unsupported by any LEGAL reasoning (i.e. based on court cases) or
historical reasoning (i.e. based on the methods of history, of which
you seem ignorant), and you've done so for years.
If Buckeye would not keep posting the same basic legal and historical
arguments with the same gaping holes in their logic as applied to vouchers,
I would have no reason to keep posting the same basic arguments in response.
At least I go to the trouble of directly addressing the particular points
that I am responding to, something that Buckeye often makes no real attempt
to do. So I see no basis for claiming that my redundancy is rude while
Buckeye's is not. If he doesn't want to hear the same arguments from me, he
can post something genuinely new that calls for a different response,
something that my usual responses will not work to refute.
Your postings are floods of raw opinion for which you make not even
the slightest attempt to establish relevance to LAW, which is the
topic which you appear to be addressing. LAW is what is done by
Congress, courts and lawyers, NOT what is done by random uninformed
Usenet posters with ideological opinions.
You ignore the fact that law itself is generally based on underlying
concepts of fairness and justice. The way that I establish relevance to law
is much like how Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance established relevance
to law, pointing out facts and principles and arguing how they ought to be
applied in the making of law. If people focused exclusively on current law
and never went beyond current law to consider whether something else would
be more fair and just, we would still have slavery and numerous other evils.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Buckeye, I'd like you to meet Mr. Madison |
28 Aug 2004 06:54:51 AM |
|
|
"Nathan A. Barclay" <nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:
:|If Buckeye would not keep posting the same basic legal and historical
:|arguments with the same gaping holes in their logic as applied to vouchers,
:|I would have no reason to keep posting the same basic arguments in response.
LOL. Once again, backwards.
Google will support the following.
Barclay posts his opinion which is full of barclayism
Buckeye replies deleting the barclayism propaganda, but addressing most
historical and legal inaccuracies that barclay sprinkled in his post as he
tried unsuccessfully to play historian or legal beagle on line. But hark,
one major difference in styles: Barclay posts barclayisms (his personal
opinions, thoughts etc unsupported by anything outside of himself showing a
serious lack of any real research or study on the topic.
Buckeye realizing (1) his own limitations with regards to much of the
knowledge out there, (2) personal unsubstantiated opinions, even his own,
are meaningless, uses a variety of primary source and secondary source
sources to make his case with only a minor amount commentary based on his
own informed conclusions as a result of vast amounts of study and research.
Barclay then replies with pretty much the same bull all over again, right
away, or maybe months later or even years later.
Buckeye replies back with the same material that he used the last time
barclay posted the same inaccurate crap.
As long as buckeye finds posts from barclay that are inaccurate in certain
areas he will reply with the same material he replied with before to the
same inaccurate barclayims showing where, why and how barclay is
inaccurate.
It is quite evidence that actual facts, actual truth, reality is of no
concern to barclay. What is important to him is his biased, unqualified,
agenda driven ideological barclayism propaganda.
:|At least I go to the trouble of directly addressing the particular points
:|that I am responding to, something that Buckeye often makes no real attempt
:|to do.
Too bad, so sad.
I don't recognize thus do not bother to acknowledge or reply to comments a
person might make that the world is flat either. Now, there really is a
lesson there if you are smart enough to figure it out
I address your inaccuracies in the two areas I care about history and
legal with regards to church and state.
I pay absolutely no attention to your "flat earth" *****.
:|So I see no basis for claiming that my redundancy is rude while
:|Buckeye's is not.
Your redundancy is founded and based on this:
biased, unqualified, agenda driven ideological barclayism propaganda.
My "redundancy" is correcting your biased, unqualified, agenda driven
ideological barclayism propaganda historically and legally speaking on the
topic of church state or establishment clause.
:| If he doesn't want to hear the same arguments from me, he
:|can post something genuinely new that calls for a different response,
:|something that my usual responses will not work to refute.
None of your responses refute it.
A LESSON YOU HAVE YET TO LEARN, PROBABLY WILL
NEVER LEARN IS THIS:
Your biased, unqualified, agenda driven ideological barclayism propaganda
carries no weight.
I don't think you have really ever took the time to really read and
understand what the following really says and really means:
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ordinary or extraordinary claims require ordinary or extraordinary proof.
If you're going to claim something and especially something outlandish
you're going to need some pretty extraordinary and/or irrefutable proof to
back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's the ordinary or
extraordinary proof for their ordinary or extraordinary claims? If one is
not responding with ordinary or extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the
claim is not worth considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ as Homer@nospam said]
Why is asking for "proof" considered truculence? Do you consider it
truculence for a judge to ask for evidence in a trial. Would you rather
that
people just testified that they believed in the guilt of the suspect?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[as Gray Shockley said:]
(Your "opinion" is not an adequate citation.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
You saying something doesn't make it so, especially since you have no
credentials, no recognition as any kind of expert in the field, etc and is
trumped by the informed conclusions of respected recognized experts in the
field.
Your so called legal and historical analysis of court opinions and
historical documents carry no weight because you have no background in
those fields, you have not done any extensive study or research ion those
areas, you present no primary and/or secondary data backing up your
opinion.
Outside of perhaps die hard libberarians, ultra right conservatives,
religious right people, no one takes your discourses very seriously.
:|
:|> Your postings are floods of raw opinion for which you make not even
:|> the slightest attempt to establish relevance to LAW, which is the
:|> topic which you appear to be addressing. LAW is what is done by
:|> Congress, courts and lawyers, NOT what is done by random uninformed
:|> Usenet posters with ideological opinions.
:|
:|You ignore the fact that law itself is generally based on underlying
:|concepts of fairness and justice.
Oh?
Can you give some examples of this underlying concept of fairness and
justice?
It is said that law is based on such things, but is it really? Our legal
system is based on a adversarial system. Do you think losers thing there
was justice and fairness. Do you thing the ACLJ or the Beckett Foundation
things there was justice and fairness in Locke v Davey?
Do you think the families of Nicole Brown Simpson or Ron Goldman thinks
there was justice and fairness with the acquittal of O J Simpson? Being
fair here, on the other hand do you think that families of blacks that were
killed or railroaded into prison by whites in this country and those whites
got away with it thinks there is fairness and justice in the law?
Do you think gays being deprived of rights all others have as a matter of
course think there is fairness and justice in the law?
Then there is this major problem of defining fairness and justice.
What seems fair and just to one doesn't seem fair and just to another.
:|The way that I establish relevance to law
:|is much like how Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance established relevance
:|to law, pointing out facts and principles and arguing how they ought to be
:|applied in the making of law.
The law that document helped to establish is the very law you want to
overthrow. So much for that argument. LOL
:| If people focused exclusively on current law
:|and never went beyond current law to consider whether something else would
:|be more fair and just, we would still have slavery and numerous other evils.
Read Locke v Davey
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Buckeye, I'd like you to meet Mr. Madison |
28 Aug 2004 09:12:17 AM |
|
|
"Nathan A. Barclay" <nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:
:|If Buckeye would not keep posting the same basic legal and historical
:|arguments with the same gaping holes in their logic as applied to vouchers,
(1) I am not posting arguments, that is what you do. I post rebutting
historical and legal data by experts and courts that refute your arguments
(2) It has already been shown that logic as you use it doesn't necessarily
apply to law.
(3) Human behavior is rarely logical thus history would not necessarily be
logical
:|I would have no reason to keep posting the same basic arguments in response.
You post the same biased, unqualified, agenda driven, ideological,
barclayism, propaganda, because that is what your do on line.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Buckeye, I'd like you to meet Mr. Madison |
26 Aug 2004 07:49:09 PM |
|
|
"Nathan A. Barclay" <nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:
Because you are rude to keep on posting the same worthless arguments
unsupported by any LEGAL reasoning (i.e. based on court cases) or
historical reasoning (i.e. based on the methods of history, of which
you seem ignorant), and you've done so for years.
If Buckeye would not keep posting the same basic legal and historical
arguments with the same gaping holes in their logic as applied to vouchers,
I would have no reason to keep posting the same basic arguments in response.
The history and the law don't change merely because you think you've
found some "hole" in the logic. You have to write a historical
journal article and pass peer review to change recorded history, and
you have to win a court case to change legal analysis. You haven't
done either.
At least I go to the trouble of directly addressing the particular points
that I am responding to, something that Buckeye often makes no real attempt
to do.
He is providing information to the uninformed. His information is
accurate, even if you feel it is slanted.
Your postings are floods of raw opinion for which you make not even
the slightest attempt to establish relevance to LAW, which is the
topic which you appear to be addressing. LAW is what is done by
Congress, courts and lawyers, NOT what is done by random uninformed
Usenet posters with ideological opinions.
You ignore the fact that law itself is generally based on underlying
concepts of fairness and justice.
Nonsense.
"fairness" and "justice" are subjective abstractions that we cannot
agree on, so law cannot be based on them.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Buckeye, I'd like you to meet Mr. Madison |
26 Aug 2004 11:32:55 AM |
|
|
"Nathan A. Barclay" <nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:
:|
:|<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
:|news:s6soi0hsca4h449r2v6pq3k6aigccepar2@4ax.com...
:|> "Nathan A. Barclay" <nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:
:|>
:|> >:|
:|> >:|I agree
:|>
:|> Who cares? What you agree with or don't agree with is completely
:|> irrelevant.
:|
:|I wish I understood why you engage in this sort of deliberate rudeness. It
:|certainly does not contribute to a gain in knowledge.
Your opinions don't either. You are a bit more educated, it appears, and a
bit more bright, it appears, but otherwise you are very much like Jeff
Strickland and so many other who come and go here.
People like you become old and boorish very quick.
What you call deliberate rudeness is in the eye of the beholder.
If you refer to my comments about you being unqualified, it is true,
regardless if you want to believe it or not
If you refer to this: biased, unqualified, agenda driven, barclayism
propaganda, that too is true.
if you refer to my reference to barclayisms that is 99.5% of what you do.
You offer you, your unsubstantiated opinions.
They are irrelevant, totally irrelevant. You have heard the saying:
opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. Why do you feel yours has
any importance?
Even more so when those opinions of yours are not based on realty, neither
historical, legal or actual facts regarding vouchers as they have been
gathered in this country based on the areas they have been in use.
:|
:|I'm also curious as to whether or not there are people out there who do care
:|about what I'm saying.
I don't, as you should be able to tell since I keep deleting your
propaganda holding your feet to the topic which is church state history
legal.
Do you see anyone engaging you in discussion with regards to your
propaganda? I don't.
:|If not, I'm wasting my time here
You are, you always have been. The public has demonstrated time and time
again they don't want vouchers. The religious right, some looney tunes
libertarians the ultra conservatives want them. Your propaganda and
ideology as you post it fits right in with those groups. Not too may
outside of those groups give a damn about your opinions on the subject.
:|because Buckeye and
:|I disagree at too deep and fundamental level for either of us to have a
:|realistic chance of persuading the other.
There you go, wrong audience, I am not your audience nor are you mine.
What I post if for others not you. I could care less what you think or
believe. Most of the crap of yours I actually do reply to that I don't
delete is incorrect. Thus I post correcting that which you are incorrect
about for others to see. I don't care if you agree with my replies to you
or not.
Once again you are proving beyond any question of a doubt just how
biased, unqualified, agenda, driven, barclayism, closed minded
propagandist you are.
You provide you. I provide a variety of primary source and secondary
source opinions.
I provide this for the real audience, not for you.
If anyone actually bothers to read any of this, yesterday, today tomorrow
of five years from now they can compare barclay's unsubstantiated opinions
with a variety of data from a variety of sources.
Now who do you think the reasonably intelligent and open minded people are
going to give the most weight to, Barclayisms or a variety of data from a
variety of sources all showing and saying you are mistaken or incorrect?
Hint, not you.
I am making a record for any of the real audience that wishes to read it
when I reply to you.
I don't care a hoot about you or what you think.
Outfits like Google spend a great deal of money harvesting and archiving
millions of Usenet messages for years on end. Someone things there is some
sort of value to these. Someone thinks they have or will have some value to
or for someone one day, or they are awfully stupid.
I don't know what value there is to their use net archiving but I am sure
willing to make a record in | | | | | |
