| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
26 Apr 2006 12:51:23 PM |
| Object: |
Education for Laffs |
The Meaning of the First Amendment
Beginning in the 1920's the United States Supreme Court began to
hold that the various freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment against
infringement by Congress were equally guaranteed against infringement on
the part of the states by the operation of the Fourteenth Amendment, which
had become part of our Constitution in 1868. 82 That amendment forbids the
states from depriving any person of "life, liberty or property without due
process of law." The term "liberty," the Court has consistently held, must
be construed to mean not merely physical freedom but also intellectual,
spiritual, and aesthetic freedom." 83 Therefore a state may not, any more
than Congress, prohibit the free exercise of religion 84 or abridge the
freedom of speech," press," or assembly. 87
This was a great advance in judicial protection of individual
liberties, but the Court has gone even farther. It has held, in effect,
that the term "liberty" in the Fourteenth Amendment also encompasses the
freedom from a relationship between the Church and State which would
violate the First Amendment if it were the Federal government that was
involved.88 In other words, just as the Fourteenth Amendment makes the
free-exercise guarantee of the First Amendment applicable to the states,"
so too does it make the prohibition on laws respecting an establishment of
religion."
The importance of this holding can hardly be overestimated, for the
opportunities and temptations for violation of Church-State separation are
many times more numerous on the state than on the Federal level. The
foremost arena of Church-State conflict today is in the field of education,
whether with regard to religion in public education 91 or public financing
of private religious educational institutions,92 and under our system
education is primarily a state rather than Federal responsibility.93
The tremendous expansion of the practical applicability of the
no-establishment clause of the First Amendment has evoked in recent years a
widespread professional and public interest in the meaning of that clause
and in the intent of its drafters.94 Naturally those who favor a closer
co-operative relationship between governmental and religious institutions
interpret the framers' intent quite narrowly and urge that they sought only
to forbid legislation tending toward a formal union of a single Church and
the national government to the exclusion of other Churches,95 while those
who favor the separation of Church and State to the farthest extent
possible interpret the framers' intent broadly." It is therefore no
accident that the most vigorous defenders of a narrow interpretation are to
be found among those associated with Roman Catholicism and the Catholic
Church,97 whose doctrine as late as 1964 characterized Church-State
separation as "unfortunate." Conversely, secular groups such as the
American Civil Liberties Union assert a broad interpretation." It must not
be supposed, however, that the narrow interpretation enjoys no support in
non-Catholic and particularly academic circles 99 Conversely, the broad
interpretation is strongly urged within non-secular groups such as many
Protestant and Jewish organizations 100
The issue came to the fore first in 1947 in the famous parochial
school bus case, Everson v. Board of Education.101 In that case, while
upholding by a vote of 5 to 4 the validity of using tax-raised funds to
transport children to parochial schools, the Court spelled out the meaning
of the First Amendment in the following definitive language:
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means
at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a
church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or
prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence •a person
to go to or remain away from church against his will or force him to
profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished
for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church
attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or Small, can be
levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever
they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice
religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or
secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or
groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against
establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of
separation between Church and State." 102
This statement, reiterated by the Supreme Court the following year
in the Champaign released-time case, McCollum v. Board of Education,103
showed clearly that the Court had adopted the broad interpretation of the
no-establishment clause. Such an interpretation imposes an obligation of
neutrality on government not merely as between different religions but also
as between religion and non-religion, and indeed between religion and
irreligion.
That, said the Supreme Court, is what the fathers of the Constitution and
of the First Amendment intended. And they intended it not because they were
hostile to religion but because they were convinced that the cause of
religion could best be served if the government maintained a strict
hands-off policy and a high and impregnable wall between Church and State.
They were convinced too that the best way to keep from these shores the
religious bloodshed, persecution, and intolerance that had plagued the Old
World was to keep such a wall between Church and State in the New World.
This definitive interpretation of the no-establishment clause
evoked considerable criticism from a number of sources.104 It was argued
that the Supreme Court has misread the Constitution and misinterpreted the
intent of the framers. It was not, these critics asserted, the purpose of
the First Amendment to divorce religion from government or to impose
neutrality between believers and non-believers but only to meet in a
practical manner the problems raised by a multiplicity of competing sects.
This was done by requiring the government to be neutral as among the sects
and forbidding it to favor one at the expense of the others. The amendment
was not meant to bar the government from aiding and supporting religion and
religious institutions so long as the aid and support were granted equally
and without preference to some faiths and discrimination against others.'°5
The proof of their contention, said the critics of the Supreme
Court's interpretation, was to be found in the history of our country and
in the society about us. Throughout its history our governments, national
and state, have co-operated with religion and shown friendliness to it. God
is invoked in the Declaration of Independence and in practically every
state constitution. Sunday, the Christian Sabbath, is universally observed
as a day of rest. The sessions of Congress and of the state legislatures
are invariably opened with prayer, in Congress by chaplains who are
employed by the Federal government. We have chaplains in our armed forces
and in our penal institutions. Oaths in courts of law are administered
through use of the Bible. Public officials take an oath of office ending
with "so help me God." Religious institutions are tax exempt throughout the
nation. Our pledge of allegiance declares that we are a nation "under God."
Our national motto is "In God We Trust" and is inscribed on our currency
and on some of our postage stamps.
These and many other similar illustrations of governmental
cooperation with religion, said the critics of the Everson-McCollum
principle, show conclusively that the purpose of the First Amendment was
not to erect an absolute, impenetrable wall between religion and government
or to make our nation godless. The amendment, in their view, prohibits
preferential treatment and imposes an obligation of neutrality on the part
of government as among the different religious groups, but not as between
religion and non-religion or as between God-fearers and atheists.
Four years after the McCollum decision, the Court, in the New York
City released-time case of Zorach v. Clauson,'" showed some retreat from
the broad scope of the Everson-McCollum principle. "We are," said the
Court, "a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being."
The First Amendment "does not say that in every and all respects there
shall be a separation of Church and State." It requires only that "there
shall be no concert or union or dependency one on the other."'"
Nevertheless, and despite this language, it is now quite clear that
the Court did not intend to repudiate the broad interpretation of the
no-establishment clause announced in the Everson and McCollum cases. Even
in the Zorach case 108 it expressly affirmed adherence to the McCollum
decision, a decision which is consistent only with the broad interpretation
of the First Amendment expressed in the Everson and McCollum cases. The
Court also went out of its way to say that under the First Amendment
"Government may not finance religious groups nor undertake religious
instruction" 109—a disability required only if the broad interpretation of
the Everson and McCollum cases is accepted. In any event, whatever doubt
may have been cast by the Zorach case was removed by later cases. In 1961
in the Sunday law case of McGowan v. Maryland 110 and the Maryland notary
public oath case of Torcaso v. Watkins 111 the Court reiterated in full the
definitive paragraph set forth in the Everson and McCollum cases, and in
succeeding years in the New York Regents' prayer case, Engel v. Vitale,112
and the Bible reading case of Abington School District v. Schempp 113 the
Court, while it did not repeat the paragraph, applied it to bar prayer and
Bible reading from the public schools. Thus, at least up to the present
time the Supreme Court is committed to the broad interpretation of the
First Amendment, which approximates Livermore's proposal that "Congress
shall make no laws touching religion or infringing the rights of
conscience."
SOURCE: Church and State in the United States, by Anson Phelps Stokes
(1874-1958) and Leo Pfeffer. Revised one-volume edition, Harper & Row,
Publishers, (1964) pp. 101 - 03
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Education for Laffs |
26 Apr 2006 03:52:33 PM |
|
|
wrote:
The Meaning of the First Amendment
Beginning in the 1920's the United States Supreme Court began to
hold that the various freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment against
infringement by Congress were equally guaranteed against infringement on
the part of the states by the operation of the Fourteenth Amendment, which
had become part of our Constitution in 1868. 82 That amendment forbids the
states from depriving any person of "life, liberty or property without due
process of law." The term "liberty," the Court has consistently held, must
be construed to mean not merely physical freedom but also intellectual,
spiritual, and aesthetic freedom." 83 Therefore a state may not, any more
than Congress, prohibit the free exercise of religion 84 or abridge the
freedom of speech," press," or assembly. 87
This was a great advance in judicial protection of individual
liberties, but the Court has gone even farther. It has held, in effect,
that the term "liberty" in the Fourteenth Amendment also encompasses the
freedom from a relationship between the Church and State which would
violate the First Amendment if it were the Federal government that was
involved.88 In other words, just as the Fourteenth Amendment makes the
free-exercise guarantee of the First Amendment applicable to the states,"
so too does it make the prohibition on laws respecting an establishment of
religion."
The only reason that the Court has gotten away with its treasonous
interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that the people are ignorant of
the Constitution:
http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/news/breaking_news/13986532.htm
Because of widespread constitutional ignorance, the Court was able to
feed the people the line that the establishment clause meant that
Founding Christians had decided on absolute c&s separation. The Court
pulled this off by misrepresenting Jefferson. Note Jefferson famous
words in the last sentence of the paragraph below from the Everson
opinion where the Court gives its official interpretation of the
establishment clause:
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at
least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a
church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all
religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor
influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his
will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No
person can be punished for entertain- [330 U.S. 1, 16] ing or
professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or
non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to
support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be
called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion.
Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly,
participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and
vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment
of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between
Church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page
164." --Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing TP. 1947.
The problem with quoting Jefferson, however, is that the Court couldn't
have picked a worse person to help defend its scandalous interpretation
of the establishment clause. This is because Jefferson had also noted
that the Founding Christians had written the 1st and 10th Amendments to
delegate government power to legislate religion uniquely to the state
governments:
"3. Resolved that it is true as a general principle and is also
expressly declared by one of the amendments to the constitution that
'the powers not delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively
or to the people': and that no power over the freedom of religion,
freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the US.
by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, all lawful
powers respecting the same did of right remain, & were reserved, to the
states or the people..." --Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions,
1798.
1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances.
10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people.
So the States have the constitutional power (10th) to authorize public
schools to lead non-mandatory (14th) classroom discussions on the pros
and cons of evolution, creationism and irreducible complexity, for
example, regardless if atheists, separatists, secular judges and the
liberal media are misleading the people to believe that doing such
things in public schools is unconstitutional.
The constitutionally ignorant people need to wake up to the fact that
renegade judges are walking all over their constitutional religious
freedoms and heed Lincoln's advice for dealing with corrupt judges:
"We the People are the rightful master of both congress and the courts
- not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who
pervert the Constitution." --Abraham Lincoln: Political debates between
Lincoln and Douglas, 1858.
The importance of this holding can hardly be overestimated, for the
opportunities and temptations for violation of Church-State separation are
many times more numerous on the state than on the Federal level. The
foremost arena of Church-State conflict today is in the field of education,
whether with regard to religion in public education 91 or public financing
of private religious educational institutions,92 and under our system
education is primarily a state rather than Federal responsibility.93
The tremendous expansion of the practical applicability of the
no-establishment clause of the First Amendment has evoked in recent years a
widespread professional and public interest in the meaning of that clause
and in the intent of its drafters.94 Naturally those who favor a closer
<snipped for brevity>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Education for Laffs |
26 Apr 2006 11:11:07 PM |
|
|
Previously, on alt.atheism, fred in episode
<1146084753.630810.281770@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>...
The problem with quoting Jefferson, however, is that
Madison actually wrote the original draft of the 1st and saw the amendment
to becoming part of our constitution and he didn't characterize it as a
"wall" but as a "perfect" separation.
The original intent was, as Madison put it, the government should not even
be cognizant of religion except to the extent necessary to keep the peace.
It's not just separation, it's that the government should be oblivious to
the very existence of a thing called "religion" unless its necessary to
keep people from, say, practicing human sacrifice.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"Corps chief admits to 'design failure'"
(Took them long enough)
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J3EF62DEC
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Education for Laffs |
27 Apr 2006 05:26:13 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 13:51:23 -0400,
buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
The Meaning of the First Amendment
Your point being........?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Education for Laffs |
28 Apr 2006 06:52:04 AM |
|
|
laffs@'em-all.com wrote:
:|On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 13:51:23 -0400,
:|buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
:|
:|>The Meaning of the First Amendment
:|
:|Your point being........?
One more expert source showing you are incorrect.
Try reading it, you can't be that dumb not to see what it shows, at least
I would hope not.
You see, it demolishes your Everson claims
Nothing new in that since those claims are incorrect and you posts have
been error filled as well.
But this does give me the chance to put in the footnotes which I forgot to
include in the original
82. See Pfeffer, op. cit., pp. 12-20.
83. Ibid.
84. Cantwell V. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940); Marsh v. Alabama, 326
U.S. 501 ( 1946 ).
85. Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 ( 1925); Bridges V. California, 314
U.S. 252 (1941).
86. Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931); Grosjean v. American Press Co.,
297 U.S. 233 (1936).
87. De Jonge V. Oregon, 229 U.S. 353 (1937); Hague V. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496
(1939)•
88. Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. I (1947); McCollum v. Board of
Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948)•
89. Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 104 (1943); Sherbert v. Verner, 83 S.
Ct. 1790 (1963).
90. Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral, 344 U.S. 94 (1952); Abbington School
District v. Schempp, 83 S. Ct. 1560 (1963).
91. See Chapter 15.
92. See Chapter 16.
93. See Hamilton v. Regents of the University of California, 293 U.S. 245
(1934)-
94. See, e.g., Robert Freeman Butts, The American Tradition in Religion and
Education; Edward S. Corwin, A Constitution of Powers in a Secular State;
O'Neill, op. cit.; Leo Pfeffer, Church, State and Freedom; Wilfred Parsons,
The First Freedom; Joseph H. Brady, Confusion Twice Confounded.
95. O'Neill, op. cit.; Parsons, op. cit.
96. Butts, op. cit.; Pfeffer, Church, State and Freedom.
97. Parsons, op. cit.; John C. Murray, "Law or Prepossession," Law and
Contemporary Problems, XIV, 3; statement of National Catholic Welfare
Conference, New York Times, Nov. 21, 1948, p. 63.
98. See Leo Pfeffer, Creeds in Competition, Chap. 3.
99. E.g., Corwin, op. cit.
100. Pfeffer, Creeds in Competition, Chap..3.
101. See Chapter 5.
102. 330 U.S. 1, 15, 16 (1947)•
103. 333 U.S 203, 210 (1948).
104. O'Neill, op. cit.; Brady, op. cit.; Corwin, op. cit.; Parsons, op.
cit.
105. O'Neill, op. cit., is the most vigorous protagonist of this position.
,o6. See Chapter 5.
107. 343 U.S. 306 (1952).
108. Ibid.
109. Ibid.
110. 366 U.S. 420 (1961).
111. 367 U.S. 488 (1961).
112. See Chapter 5.
113. See Chapter 5.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Education for Laffs (not) |
29 Apr 2006 02:51:59 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 07:52:04 -0400,
buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
laffs@'em-all.com wrote:
:|On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 13:51:23 -0400,
:|buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
:|
:|>The Meaning of the First Amendment
:|
:|Your point being........?
One more expert source showing you are incorrect.
Try reading it, you can't be that dumb not to see what it shows, at least
I would hope not.
When the court in Everson enumerated what they
understood the separation clause to mean......did they
use a unique definition,?
Was the definition already understood as to what the
"wall" meant regarding the federal constitution?
If it was, and someone argued that the "judges are
corrupt and/or treasonous", wouldn't it follow that a
rational person (or course not a brilliant
Constitutional scholar like yourself) would tell the
dumb ***** that "no new law" was "created" by simple
virtue that it was already appled federally?
The Everson case appled the "wall" to the states---but
it essentially appled what it already was thought to
be.
It did not create the meaning of the "wall"---it used
the existing "meaning"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Education for Laffs (not) |
04 May 2006 10:48:37 AM |
|
|
laffs@'em-all.com wrote:
:|On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 07:52:04 -0400,
:|buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
:|
:|>laffs@'em-all.com wrote:
:|>
:|>>:|On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 13:51:23 -0400,
:|>>:|buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
:|>>:|
:|>>:|>The Meaning of the First Amendment
:|>>:|
:|>>:|Your point being........?
:|>
:|>One more expert source showing you are incorrect.
:|>
:|>Try reading it, you can't be that dumb not to see what it shows, at least
:|>I would hope not.
:|
:|When the court in Everson enumerated what they
:|understood the separation clause to mean......did they
:|use a unique definition,?
:|
:|Was the definition already understood as to what the
:|"wall" meant regarding the federal constitution?
:|
If memory serves me correct four or more people have taken you to task on
this topic. They being Bob LeChevalier, Matt Silberstein, Josh Rosenbluth
and myself.
I suspect one may be an attorney or at least has a good deal of training in
the field in some form or fashion (Josh Rosenbluth), one is one of the
smartest people in the newsgroup he reads and posts from and is well
versed in the subjects he usually posts and knows how to find supporting
information and frequently posts such (Bob LeChevalier).
Myself, I have provided data concerning myself in the past. On this
particular topic I have provided historical and legal data, primary source
and secondary source data from respected and well qualified sources.
All four of us have said and shown, with documentation, you to be
incorrect.
You on the other hand have provided nothing except you "you say."
Your "you say" is irrelevant and meaningless.
You have shown with your silly lame posts that you are truly no different
than fred.
Nothing else beyond what follows needs to be said.
Summation:
Death blow to Laffs Everson theory PART I
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/6fe11a2df...
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z6F22310D
Death blow to Laffs Everson theory PART I I
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_frm/th...
http://makeashorterlink.com/?D4632110D
Death blow to Laffs Everson theory (not)
More evidence against you
Here is what you are trying to claim:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/9fec1bbe7...
http://makeashorterlink.com/?O6235210D
AND
Death blow to Laffs Everson theory (not)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats/msg/d9d5fa0da70...
http://makeashorterlink.com/?C3DE2370D
AND
Death blow to Laffs Everson theory (not)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats/msg/3b5f809bae9...
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A1FE2270D
AND
Death blow to Laffs Everson theory (not)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/3d851618f...
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N24F1270D
Bucky, bucky. You still fall short.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/4b0f77527...
http://makeashorterlink.com/?I50F1470D
Education for Laffs
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats/msg/4c9d150e5f0...
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q1AE2270D
3 laws established by Everson, while under attack, still survive
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats/msg/4c52502133f142fd?hl=en&
http://makeashorterlink.com/?X12025F0D
Everson law, the unbroken history
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats/msg/62e06708fd614808?dmode=source&hl=en
http://makeashorterlink.com/?O24042F0D
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
