| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
27 Sep 2005 07:50:57 AM |
| Object: |
Check facts before believing ACLU |
Theocracy in action
http://morningsentinel.mainetoday.com/view/letters/2000007.shtml
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Check facts before believing ACLU
Copyright © 2005 Blethen Maine Newspapers Inc.
The American Civil Liberties Union has been telling a lie. It cites the
"separation clause" in its arguments. Did you know there is no such thing?
It is actually called the First Amendment, or the "Establishment Clause."
They say Thomas Jefferson wrote about the "wall of separation" in one of
his letters. Did they actually read the letter or know the reason for it?
Jefferson was responding to a letter from the Danbury Baptist Association.
They felt that in their state, the legislature granted religious liberties
as a "favor," rather than a right.
Jefferson responded by reminding them that the American people had chosen
to restrict the government from interfering. I quote from the letter, "...
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 and state." All it means
is that the federal government cannot get involved, period. It says nothing
about our expression of religion, or display thereof, as being
unconstitutional. He closed his letter with "I reciprocate your kind
prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of
man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association,
assurances of my high respect & esteem."
Does this sound like a man who separated his faith from his job?
Bill Scott
Vassalboro
***************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: Check facts before believing ACLU |
28 Sep 2005 08:20:44 AM |
|
|
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:svfij1dnpm287gv4am2g9lv2dasi2113nc@4ax.com...
Theocracy in action
http://morningsentinel.mainetoday.com/view/letters/2000007.shtml
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Check facts before believing ACLU
Copyright © 2005 Blethen Maine Newspapers Inc.
The American Civil Liberties Union has been telling a lie. It cites the
"separation clause" in its arguments. Did you know there is no such thing?
You're wrong. There is such a thing. Indeed you mention it in the next line.
It is actually called the First Amendment, or the "Establishment Clause."
That's the separation clause.
They say Thomas Jefferson wrote about the "wall of separation" in one of
his letters. Did they actually read the letter or know the reason for it?
Jefferson was responding to a letter from the Danbury Baptist Association.
They felt that in their state, the legislature granted religious liberties
as a "favor," rather than a right.
But it's enshrined in the Bill of Rights. It's a right.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Check facts before believing ACLU |
01 Oct 2005 05:46:31 AM |
|
|
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
:|news:svfij1dnpm287gv4am2g9lv2dasi2113nc@4ax.com...
:|> Theocracy in action
:|>
:|> http://morningsentinel.mainetoday.com/view/letters/2000007.shtml
:|>
:|> Tuesday, September 27, 2005
:|>
:|> Check facts before believing ACLU
:|>
:|> Copyright © 2005 Blethen Maine Newspapers Inc.
:|>
:|> The American Civil Liberties Union has been telling a lie. It cites the
:|> "separation clause" in its arguments. Did you know there is no such thing?
:|
:|You're wrong. There is such a thing. Indeed you mention it in the next line.
First of all, you need to learn to determine the difference between someone
who may post something and the person who actually wrote what was posted.
:|
:|> It is actually called the First Amendment, or the "Establishment Clause."
:|
:|That's the separation clause.
The Establishment Clause IS NOT the separation clause.
The Establishment Clause only reinforced the separation and separation
clause that is found in the body of the unamended constitution.
Study Guide: Separation of Church and State - Indepth
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd0.htm
:|> They say Thomas Jefferson wrote about the "wall of separation" in one of
:|> his letters. Did they actually read the letter or know the reason for it?
:|> Jefferson was responding to a letter from the Danbury Baptist Association.
:|> They felt that in their state, the legislature granted religious liberties
:|> as a "favor," rather than a right.
:|
:|But it's enshrined in the Bill of Rights. It's a right.
The BORs didn't apply to the states at that time
***************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Check facts before believing ACLU |
30 Sep 2005 06:38:52 AM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|
:|"Agki" <agkistrodon@mindspring.com> wrote in message
:|news:1127841965.082372.206840@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
:|> So?
:|
:|That's the point, the Constitution does not prohibit this on the part of the
:|States, it only prohibits it on the part of the Feds.
So says jeffy but we know about jeffy
jeffy is famous for his ignorance
Jeff Strickland displays his "intelligence and knowledge"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats/msg/96d51bf8dace2663?hl=en&
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Check facts before believing ACLU |
27 Sep 2005 11:55:42 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Theocracy in action
http://morningsentinel.mainetoday.com/view/letters/2000007.shtml
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Check facts before believing ACLU
Copyright =A9 2005 Blethen Maine Newspapers Inc.
The American Civil Liberties Union has been telling a lie. It cites the
"separation clause" in its arguments. Did you know there is no such thing?
It is actually called the First Amendment, or the "Establishment Clause."
They say Thomas Jefferson wrote about the "wall of separation" in one of
his letters. Did they actually read the letter or know the reason for it?
Jefferson was responding to a letter from the Danbury Baptist Association.
They felt that in their state, the legislature granted religious liberties
as a "favor," rather than a right.
Jefferson responded by reminding them that the American people had chosen
to restrict the government from interfering. I quote from the letter, "...
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 and state." All it means
is that the federal government cannot get involved, period. It says nothi=
ng
about our expression of religion, or display thereof, as being
unconstitutional. He closed his letter with "I reciprocate your kind
prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator =
of
man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association,
assurances of my high respect & esteem."
Does this sound like a man who separated his faith from his job?
Not only does the context of Jefferson's Danbury letter show that
Jefferson was referring only to the federal government with respect to
separation of powers, but people don't understand that the 10th
Amendment automatically delegated the power to address religion to the
states since only the federal government was prohibited from having
this power. Try:
http://www.renewamerica.us/readings/keyes_essay.htm
Bill Scott
Vassalboro
***************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS =B7 Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why =
"a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisne=
r,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Check facts before believing ACLU |
27 Sep 2005 08:01:18 PM |
|
|
In <1127840142.303481.8720@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Not only does the context of Jefferson's Danbury letter show that
Jefferson was referring only to the federal government with respect to
separation of powers, but people don't understand that the 10th Amendment
automatically delegated the power to address religion to the states since
only the federal government was prohibited from having this power. Try:
http://www.renewamerica.us/readings/keyes_essay.htm
Keyes is an idiot. The 14th was meant by its crafters to apply the BoR to
the states.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"We're angry, Mr. President, and we'll be angry long
after our beloved city and surrounding parishes have
been pumped dry. Our people deserved rescuing.
Many who could have been were not. That's to the
government's shame."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?F2D511CBB
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Check facts before believing ACLU |
28 Sep 2005 02:19:47 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 11:55, anonymous poster
wrote:
Not only does the context of Jefferson's Danbury letter show that
Jefferson was referring only to the federal government with respect to
separation of powers, but people don't understand that the 10th
Amendment automatically delegated the power to address religion to the
states since only the federal government was prohibited from having
this power.
Are you saying that nothing has changed since Mr
Jefferson wrote his letter?
Do you regard the date of that particular letter
as a drop-dead date?
Do you selectively select what part of the laws
to observe, based on the topic at hand and your
own cultist's beliefs?
Gray Shockley
---------------
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "t1gercat" |
|
| Title: Re: Check facts before believing ACLU |
27 Sep 2005 05:31:57 PM |
|
|
fred wrote:
buckeye-...@nospam.net wrote:
Theocracy in action
http://morningsentinel.mainetoday.com/view/letters/2000007.shtml
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Check facts before believing ACLU
Copyright =A9 2005 Blethen Maine Newspapers Inc.
The American Civil Liberties Union has been telling a lie. It cites the
"separation clause" in its arguments. Did you know there is no such thi=
ng?
It is actually called the First Amendment, or the "Establishment Clause=
.."
They say Thomas Jefferson wrote about the "wall of separation" in one of
his letters. Did they actually read the letter or know the reason for i=
t?
Jefferson was responding to a letter from the Danbury Baptist Associati=
on.
They felt that in their state, the legislature granted religious libert=
ies
as a "favor," rather than a right.
Jefferson responded by reminding them that the American people had chos=
en
to restrict the government from interfering. I quote from the letter, "=
..=2E.
I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American
people which declared that their legislature should make no law respect=
ing
an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,
thus building a wall of separation between church and state." All it me=
ans
is that the federal government cannot get involved, period. It says not=
hing
about our expression of religion, or display thereof, as being
unconstitutional. He closed his letter with "I reciprocate your kind
prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creato=
r of
man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association,
assurances of my high respect & esteem."
Does this sound like a man who separated his faith from his job?
Not only does the context of Jefferson's Danbury letter show that
Jefferson was referring only to the federal government with respect to
separation of powers, but people don't understand that the 10th
Amendment automatically delegated the power to address religion to the
states since only the federal government was prohibited from having
this power. Try:
http://www.renewamerica.us/readings/keyes_essay.htm
Ever hear of the 14th Amendment, Fred? It applied the 1st Amendment to
everyone. As for the Danbury letter, Jefferson made it clear that the
intent of the 1st was to establish a wall of separation between the
state and religion. Of course he meant the federal government, because
the 1st, when originally adopted, only applies to congress. The 14th
made it apply to all the states as well. So, assuming that the
ratifiers of the 14th were not deaf, blind and stupid, they knew very
well that they were passing that wall of separation on to the states.
Keyes is a silly ***** whose equivocations and ramblings can't remake
history.=20
Wexford
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Check facts before believing ACLU |
27 Sep 2005 05:11:21 PM |
|
|
fred wrote:
buckeye-...@nospam.net wrote:
=20
Theocracy in action
http://morningsentinel.mainetoday.com/view/letters/2000007.shtml
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Check facts before believing ACLU
Copyright =A9 2005 Blethen Maine Newspapers Inc.
The American Civil Liberties Union has been telling a lie. It cites the=
"separation clause" in its arguments. Did you know there is no such thi=
ng?
It is actually called the First Amendment, or the "Establishment Clause=
=2E"
They say Thomas Jefferson wrote about the "wall of separation" in one o=
f
his letters. Did they actually read the letter or know the reason for i=
t?
Jefferson was responding to a letter from the Danbury Baptist Associati=
on.
They felt that in their state, the legislature granted religious libert=
ies
as a "favor," rather than a right.
Jefferson responded by reminding them that the American people had chos=
en
to restrict the government from interfering. I quote from the letter, "=
=2E..
I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American
people which declared that their legislature should make no law respect=
ing
an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,=
thus building a wall of separation between church and state." All it me=
ans
is that the federal government cannot get involved, period. It says not=
hing
about our expression of religion, or display thereof, as being
unconstitutional. He closed his letter with "I reciprocate your kind
prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creato=
r of
man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association,
assurances of my high respect & esteem."
Does this sound like a man who separated his faith from his job?
=20
=20
Not only does the context of Jefferson's Danbury letter show that
Jefferson was referring only to the federal government with respect to
separation of powers, but people don't understand that the 10th
Amendment automatically delegated the power to address religion to the
states since only the federal government was prohibited from having
this power. Try:
=20
http://www.renewamerica.us/readings/keyes_essay.htm
However, the 14th Amendment places the same restrictions on the states th=
at=20
exist for the Federal government, at least as it has been consistently=20
interpreted by the SCOTUS:
<quote>
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subj=
ect to=20
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the st=
ate=20
wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall a=
bridge=20
the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall =
any=20
state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due proce=
ss of=20
law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection =
of the=20
laws.
</quote>
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Check facts before believing ACLU |
27 Sep 2005 01:37:39 PM |
|
|
The separation clause is established federal law. Go read a book. The
ACLU lies every other second, but not about this.
buckeye-...@nospam.net wrote:
Theocracy in action
http://morningsentinel.mainetoday.com/view/letters/2000007.shtml
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Check facts before believing ACLU
Copyright =A9 2005 Blethen Maine Newspapers Inc.
The American Civil Liberties Union has been telling a lie. It cites the
"separation clause" in its arguments. Did you know there is no such thing?
It is actually called the First Amendment, or the "Establishment Clause."
They say Thomas Jefferson wrote about the "wall of separation" in one of
his letters. Did they actually read the letter or know the reason for it?
Jefferson was responding to a letter from the Danbury Baptist Association.
They felt that in their state, the legislature granted religious liberties
as a "favor," rather than a right.
Jefferson responded by reminding them that the American people had chosen
to restrict the government from interfering. I quote from the letter, "...
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 and state." All it means
is that the federal government cannot get involved, period. It says nothi=
ng
about our expression of religion, or display thereof, as being
unconstitutional. He closed his letter with "I reciprocate your kind
prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator =
of
man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association,
assurances of my high respect & esteem."
Does this sound like a man who separated his faith from his job?
Bill Scott
Vassalboro
***************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS =B7 Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why =
"a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisne=
r,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Check facts before believing ACLU |
28 Sep 2005 04:57:53 AM |
|
|
wrote:
:|The separation clause is established federal law. Go read a book. The
:|ACLU lies every other second, but not about this.
:|
hehehehehe
I guess you missed the coment Theocracy in action. Didn't have a clue about
what that might mean, huh?
:|buckeye-...@nospam.net wrote:
:|> Theocracy in action
I guess you totally missed the fact it wasn't written by me.
I think maybe you should read a lot of books until you leanr how to
comprehend that which you do read
:|>
:|> http://morningsentinel.mainetoday.com/view/letters/2000007.shtml
:|>
:|> Tuesday, September 27, 2005
:|>
:|> Check facts before believing ACLU
:|>
:|> Copyright © 2005 Blethen Maine Newspapers Inc.
:|>
:|> The American Civil Liberties Union has been telling a lie. It cites the
:|> "separation clause" in its arguments. Did you know there is no such thing?
:|> It is actually called the First Amendment, or the "Establishment Clause."
:|> They say Thomas Jefferson wrote about the "wall of separation" in one of
:|> his letters. Did they actually read the letter or know the reason for it?
:|> Jefferson was responding to a letter from the Danbury Baptist Association.
:|> They felt that in their state, the legislature granted religious liberties
:|> as a "favor," rather than a right.
:|>
:|> Jefferson responded by reminding them that the American people had chosen
:|> to restrict the government from interfering. I quote from the letter, "...
:|> 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 and state." All it means
:|> is that the federal government cannot get involved, period. It says nothing
:|> about our expression of religion, or display thereof, as being
:|> unconstitutional. He closed his letter with "I reciprocate your kind
:|> prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of
:|> man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association,
:|> assurances of my high respect & esteem."
:|>
:|> Does this sound like a man who separated his faith from his job?
:|>
:|> Bill Scott
:|>
:|> Vassalboro
:|>
***************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v.
Eisner, 256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes,
J.). Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir.
1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
