Sociology > Education > FEMA PLAN TO REBUILD RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS AND OTHER RELIGIOUS FACILITIES IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL,
| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
20 Oct 2005 11:25:08 AM |
| Object: |
FEMA PLAN TO REBUILD RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS AND OTHER RELIGIOUS FACILITIES IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, |
For Immediate Release
October 19, 2005
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
Contact: Joe Conn, Rob Boston or Jeremy Leaming
202.466.3234 telephone
202.466.2587 fax
http://www.au.org/site/R?i=dXPYIJxiwXciGzGAkSGYwg..
FEMA PLAN TO REBUILD RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS AND OTHER RELIGIOUS FACILITIES IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, SAYS AMERICANS UNITED
Taxpayers Should Not Be Forced To Subsidize Religion, Watchdog Group Says
A plan by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to spend taxpayer
dollars to rebuild religious schools and other religious facilities
violates constitutional provisions barring public support of religion, says
Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
James Towey, director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and
Community Initiatives, told reporters yesterday that using public funds to
rebuild religious facilities is permissible as long as no money goes
directly to subsidize buildings used primarily for religious purposes. But
Towey included religious schools what he called "faith-based educational
facilities" in the list of eligible institutions.
"This policy is incoherent, unworkable and unconstitutional," said the Rev.
Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. "Towey and FEMA seem
to believe that religious schools aren't primarily religious. What a
ridiculous assertion."
Lynn said the Supreme Court has never approved public funding for
facilities used primarily for religious purposes. Religious schools, he
noted, would certainly fit this standard. Many of them sponsor religious
worship and weave religion into the curriculum throughout the school day.
"Religious facilities serve a private sectarian purpose and must be paid
for by the denominations that sponsor them," Lynn said. "Taxpayer funding
of churches and church schools is simply not permitted by the
Constitution."
Lynn criticized the agency for using the tragic Gulf Coast hurricanes as
yet another excuse to attack the wall of separation between church and
state.
"In light of FEMA's well-publicized recent failures, the best thing that
agency could do is focus on helping people in need and stop messing with
the Constitution," Lynn said. "Religious groups receive billions annually
in donations. They have the means to take care of themselves."
Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington,
D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the
importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.
**************************************************************
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: FEMA PLAN TO REBUILD RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS AND OTHER RELIGIOUS FACILITIES IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, |
21 Oct 2005 06:43:06 AM |
|
|
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
:|I'm still waiting for you to explain why repairing a storm damaged
:|building is respecting an establishment of religion.
Here dude, read and weep:
EVIDENCE
ITEM # 1
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/madison_veto.html
ames Madison, as President, vetoing a bill introduced by the Episcopal and
Baptist Church.
by James Madison
Having examined and considered the Bill, entitled "An Act incorporating
protestant Episcopal Church in the Town of Alexandria in the District of
Columbia," I now return the Bill to the House of Representatives, in which
it originated, with the following objections:
Because the Bill exceeds the rightful authority, to which Governments are
limited by the essential distinction between Civil and Religious functions,
and violates, in particular, the Article of the Constitution of United
States which declares, that "Congress shall make no law respecting a
Religious establishment." The Bill enacts into, and establishes by law,
sundry rules and proceedings relative purely to the organization and policy
of the Church incorporated, and comprehending even the election and removal
of the Minister of the same; so that no change could be made therein, by
the particular Society, or by the General Church of which it is a member,
and whose authority it recognizes. This particular Church, therefore, would
so far be a religious establishment by law; a legal force and sanction
being given to certain articles in its constitution and administration. Nor
can it be considered that the articles thus established, are to be taken as
the descriptive criteria only, of the corporate identity of the Society; in
as much as this identity, and must depend on other characteristics; as the
regulations established are generally unessential and alterable, according
to the principles and cannons, by which Churches of that denomination
govern themselves; and as the injunctions and prohibitions contained in the
regulations would be enforced by the penal consequences applicable to a
violation of them according to the local law.
Because the Bill vests in this said incorporated Church, an authority to
provide for the support of the poor children of the same; an authority,
which being altogether superfluous if the provision is to be the result of
pious charity, would be a precedent for giving to religious Societies as
such, a legal agency in carrying into effect a public and civic duty.
( James Madison, "Veto Message to Congress," February 21, 1811; from Jack
N. Rakove, ed., James Madison: Writings, New York: Library of America, p.
683.
**********************************************************************************
ITEM #2
Madison's vetoes: Some of The First Official Meanings Assigned to The
Establishment Clause
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/madvetos.htm
ITEM # 3
[EMPHASIS ADDED]
The still more important fact is that the type of article used in the
establishment clause makes no difference. The First Amendment does not say
that Congress shall not establish a religion or create an establishment of
religion. It says Congress shall make no law RESPECTING an establishment of
religion. Whether "respecting" connotes honoring or concerning, the clause
means that Congress shall make no law on that subject THE BAN IS NOT JUST
ON ESTABLISHMENTS OF RELIGION BUT ON LAWS RESPECTING
THEM, A FACT THAT ALLOWS A LAW TO FALL SHORT OF CREATING AN ESTABLISHMENT
YET STILL BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
(SOURCE: The Establishment Clause, Religion and the First Amendment,
Leonard W. Levy, Second Edition, Revised, The University of North Carolina
Press, (1994) p. 118
ITEM # 4
-----------------------------------------------
THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE AS DEFINED IN 1947:
-----------------------------------------------
The Establishment Clause as defined by the USSC in Everson v. Bd of Ed,
1947
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at
least this:
(1) neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.
(2) Neither can pass laws which aid one religion,
(2a) aid all religions,
(2b) or prefer one religion over another.
(3) Neither can force
(3a) nor influence a person to go to
(3b) or to remain away from church against his will
(3c) or force him to profess a belief
(3d) or disbelief in any religion.
(4) No person can be punished for entertaining [p*16]
(4a) or professing religious beliefs
(4b) or disbeliefs,
(4c) for church attendance
(4d) or non-attendance.
(5) No tax in any amount,
(5a) large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities
(5b) or institutions, whatever they may be called,
(5c) or whatever form they may adopt to teach
(5d) or practice religion.
(6) Neither a state
(6a) nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the
(6b) affairs of any religious organizations
(6c) or groups,
(6d) and vice versa.
************************************
ITEM # 5
U.S.N.Y. 1973. A law may be one "respecting the establishment of religion'
even though its consequence is not to promote a state religion, and even
though it does not aid one religion more than another but merely benefits
all religions alike. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 1.-Committee For Public Ed. and
Rel'g'ous Liberty v, Nyquist, 93 S.Ct. 2955, 413 U.S. 756, 37 L.Ed.2d 948,
concurring opinion Committee for Public Ed. & Religous Lib. v. Nyquist, 93
S,Ct. 2988, 413 U.S. 756, 37 L.Ed.2d 948, dissenting opinion 93 S.Ct, 2993,
413 U.S. 756, 37 L.Ed.2d 948.
Careful examination is required of any law challenged on establishment
grounds, with a view to ascertaining whether it furthers any of evils
against which the establishment clause protects. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend.
I.-Id.
In order to pass muster under establishment clause, law in question must
reflect a clearly secular legislative purpose, have primary effect which
neither advances nor inhibits religion and avoid excessive governmental
entanglement with religion. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. I.-Id.
**************************************************************************************
Now to understand it will require you to do some unbiased thinking.
Thus, I predict you won't understand
**************************************************************
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: FEMA PLAN TO REBUILD RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS AND OTHER RELIGIOUS FACILITIES IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, |
21 Oct 2005 09:27:14 AM |
|
|
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
:|I'm still waiting for you to explain why repairing a storm damaged
:|building is respecting an establishment of religion.
Here dude, read and weep:
EVIDENCE
ITEM # 1
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/madison_veto.html
ames Madison, as President, vetoing a bill introduced by the Episcopal and
Baptist Church.
by James Madison
Having examined and considered the Bill, entitled "An Act incorporating
protestant Episcopal Church in the Town of Alexandria in the District of
Columbia," I now return the Bill to the House of Representatives, in which
it originated, with the following objections:
Because the Bill exceeds the rightful authority, to which Governments are
limited by the essential distinction between Civil and Religious functions,
and violates, in particular, the Article of the Constitution of United
States which declares, that "Congress shall make no law respecting a
Religious establishment." The Bill enacts into, and establishes by law,
sundry rules and proceedings relative purely to the organization and policy
of the Church incorporated, and comprehending even the election and removal
of the Minister of the same; so that no change could be made therein, by
the particular Society, or by the General Church of which it is a member,
and whose authority it recognizes. This particular Church, therefore, would
so far be a religious establishment by law; a legal force and sanction
being given to certain articles in its constitution and administration. Nor
can it be considered that the articles thus established, are to be taken as
the descriptive criteria only, of the corporate identity of the Society; in
as much as this identity, and must depend on other characteristics; as the
regulations established are generally unessential and alterable, according
to the principles and cannons, by which Churches of that denomination
govern themselves; and as the injunctions and prohibitions contained in the
regulations would be enforced by the penal consequences applicable to a
violation of them according to the local law.
Because the Bill vests in this said incorporated Church, an authority to
provide for the support of the poor children of the same; an authority,
which being altogether superfluous if the provision is to be the result of
pious charity, would be a precedent for giving to religious Societies as
such, a legal agency in carrying into effect a public and civic duty.
( James Madison, "Veto Message to Congress," February 21, 1811; from Jack
N. Rakove, ed., James Madison: Writings, New York: Library of America, p.
683.
**********************************************************************************
ITEM #2
Madison's vetoes: Some of The First Official Meanings Assigned to The
Establishment Clause
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/madvetos.htm
ITEM # 3
[EMPHASIS ADDED]
The still more important fact is that the type of article used in the
establishment clause makes no difference. The First Amendment does not say
that Congress shall not establish a religion or create an establishment of
religion. It says Congress shall make no law RESPECTING an establishment of
religion. Whether "respecting" connotes honoring or concerning, the clause
means that Congress shall make no law on that subject THE BAN IS NOT JUST
ON ESTABLISHMENTS OF RELIGION BUT ON LAWS RESPECTING
THEM, A FACT THAT ALLOWS A LAW TO FALL SHORT OF CREATING AN ESTABLISHMENT
YET STILL BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
(SOURCE: The Establishment Clause, Religion and the First Amendment,
Leonard W. Levy, Second Edition, Revised, The University of North Carolina
Press, (1994) p. 118
ITEM # 4
-----------------------------------------------
THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE AS DEFINED IN 1947:
-----------------------------------------------
The Establishment Clause as defined by the USSC in Everson v. Bd of Ed,
1947
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at
least this:
(1) neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.
(2) Neither can pass laws which aid one religion,
(2a) aid all religions,
(2b) or prefer one religion over another.
(3) Neither can force
(3a) nor influence a person to go to
(3b) or to remain away from church against his will
(3c) or force him to profess a belief
(3d) or disbelief in any religion.
(4) No person can be punished for entertaining [p*16]
(4a) or professing religious beliefs
(4b) or disbeliefs,
(4c) for church attendance
(4d) or non-attendance.
(5) No tax in any amount,
(5a) large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities
(5b) or institutions, whatever they may be called,
(5c) or whatever form they may adopt to teach
(5d) or practice religion.
(6) Neither a state
(6a) nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the
(6b) affairs of any religious organizations
(6c) or groups,
(6d) and vice versa.
************************************
ITEM # 5
U.S.N.Y. 1973. A law may be one "respecting the establishment of religion'
even though its consequence is not to promote a state religion, and even
though it does not aid one religion more than another but merely benefits
all religions alike. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 1.-Committee For Public Ed. and
Rel'g'ous Liberty v, Nyquist, 93 S.Ct. 2955, 413 U.S. 756, 37 L.Ed.2d 948,
concurring opinion Committee for Public Ed. & Religous Lib. v. Nyquist, 93
S,Ct. 2988, 413 U.S. 756, 37 L.Ed.2d 948, dissenting opinion 93 S.Ct, 2993,
413 U.S. 756, 37 L.Ed.2d 948.
Careful examination is required of any law challenged on establishment
grounds, with a view to ascertaining whether it furthers any of evils
against which the establishment clause protects. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend.
I.-Id.
In order to pass muster under establishment clause, law in question must
reflect a clearly secular legislative purpose, have primary effect which
neither advances nor inhibits religion and avoid excessive governmental
entanglement with religion. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. I.-Id.
**************************************************************************************
Now to understand it will require you to do some unbiased thinking.
Thus, I predict you won't understand
**************************************************************
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: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: FEMA PLAN TO REBUILD RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS AND OTHER RELIGIOUS FACILITIES IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, |
21 Oct 2005 11:27:30 AM |
|
|
The Bill enacts into, and establishes by law,
sundry rules and proceedings relative purely to the organization and policy
of the Church incorporated, and comprehending even the election and removal
of the Minister of the same; so that no change could be made therein, by
the particular Society, or by the General Church of which it is a member,
and whose authority it recognizes. This particular Church, therefore, would
so far be a religious establishment by law; a legal force and sanction
being given to certain articles in its constitution and administration.
Here's the problem with this Bill. It definitely crosses the 1st
Amendment line. However, this has nothing to do with repairing
buildings damaged by a storm. You have actually failed to make your
point.
Can't you think for yourself instead of merely passing along
anti-religious propaganda like a zombie?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: FEMA PLAN TO REBUILD RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS AND OTHER RELIGIOUS FACILITIES IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, |
22 Oct 2005 12:33:24 PM |
|
|
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
:|The Bill enacts into, and establishes by law,
:|> sundry rules and proceedings relative purely to the organization and policy
:|> of the Church incorporated, and comprehending even the election and removal
:|> of the Minister of the same; so that no change could be made therein, by
:|> the particular Society, or by the General Church of which it is a member,
:|> and whose authority it recognizes. This particular Church, therefore, would
:|> so far be a religious establishment by law; a legal force and sanction
:|> being given to certain articles in its constitution and administration.
:|
:|Here's the problem with this Bill. It definitely crosses the 1st
:|Amendment line. However, this has nothing to do with repairing
:|buildings damaged by a storm. You have actually failed to make your
:|point.
:|
:|Can't you think for yourself instead of merely passing along
:|anti-religious propaganda like a zombie?
(Grin)
Hey dufus. included in what I provided was a letter by James Madison to
Congress explaining why he vetoed an act of Congress which violated the
Establishment Clause. (item # 1) Item #2 cover that same veto Congress
failed attempt to override his veto along with the same for two other
vetoes that violated the establishment Clause
James Madison didn't write anti-religious propaganda.
Item #3 was written by a highly respected (by his peers) Highly published
Constitutional scholar, a true Constitutional scholar unlike that clown you
like to promote Alan Keyes
Item #4 The law retarding the Establishment Clause
The only person that does propaganda here you, dufus.
Yourn ignorance got exposed again
EVIDENCE
ITEM # 1
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/madison_veto.html
James Madison, as President, vetoing a bill introduced by the Episcopal and
Baptist Church.
by James Madison
Having examined and considered the Bill, entitled "An Act incorporating
protestant Episcopal Church in the Town of Alexandria in the District of
Columbia," I now return the Bill to the House of Representatives, in which
it originated, with the following objections:
Because the Bill exceeds the rightful authority, to which Governments are
limited by the essential distinction between Civil and Religious functions,
and violates, in particular, the Article of the Constitution of United
States which declares, that "Congress shall make no law respecting a
Religious establishment." The Bill enacts into, and establishes by law,
sundry rules and proceedings relative purely to the organization and policy
of the Church incorporated, and comprehending even the election and removal
of the Minister of the same; so that no change could be made therein, by
the particular Society, or by the General Church of which it is a member,
and whose authority it recognizes. This particular Church, therefore, would
so far be a religious establishment by law; a legal force and sanction
being given to certain articles in its constitution and administration. Nor
can it be considered that the articles thus established, are to be taken as
the descriptive criteria only, of the corporate identity of the Society; in
as much as this identity, and must depend on other characteristics; as the
regulations established are generally unessential and alterable, according
to the principles and cannons, by which Churches of that denomination
govern themselves; and as the injunctions and prohibitions contained in the
regulations would be enforced by the penal consequences applicable to a
violation of them according to the local law.
Because the Bill vests in this said incorporated Church, an authority to
provide for the support of the poor children of the same; an authority,
which being altogether superfluous if the provision is to be the result of
pious charity, would be a precedent for giving to religious Societies as
such, a legal agency in carrying into effect a public and civic duty.
( James Madison, "Veto Message to Congress," February 21, 1811; from Jack
N. Rakove, ed., James Madison: Writings, New York: Library of America, p.
683.
**********************************************************************************
ITEM #2
Madison's vetoes: Some of The First Official Meanings Assigned to The
Establishment Clause
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/madvetos.htm
*****************************************************************************
ITEM # 3
[EMPHASIS ADDED]
The still more important fact is that the type of article used in the
establishment clause makes no difference. The First Amendment does not say
that Congress shall not establish a religion or create an establishment of
religion. It says Congress shall make no law RESPECTING an establishment of
religion. Whether "respecting" connotes honoring or concerning, the clause
means that Congress shall make no law on that subject THE BAN IS NOT JUST
ON ESTABLISHMENTS OF RELIGION BUT ON LAWS RESPECTING
THEM, A FACT THAT ALLOWS A LAW TO FALL SHORT OF CREATING AN ESTABLISHMENT
YET STILL BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
(SOURCE: The Establishment Clause, Religion and the First Amendment,
Leonard W. Levy, Second Edition, Revised, The University of North Carolina
Press, (1994) p. 118
ITEM # 4
-----------------------------------------------
THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE AS DEFINED IN 1947:
-----------------------------------------------
The Establishment Clause as defined by the USSC in Everson v. Bd of Ed,
1947
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at
least this:
(1) neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.
(2) Neither can pass laws which aid one religion,
(2a) aid all religions,
(2b) or prefer one religion over another.
(3) Neither can force
(3a) nor influence a person to go to
(3b) or to remain away from church against his will
(3c) or force him to profess a belief
(3d) or disbelief in any religion.
(4) No person can be punished for entertaining [p*16]
(4a) or professing religious beliefs
(4b) or disbeliefs,
(4c) for church attendance
(4d) or non-attendance.
(5) No tax in any amount,
(5a) large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities
(5b) or institutions, whatever they may be called,
(5c) or whatever form they may adopt to teach
(5d) or practice religion.
(6) Neither a state
(6a) nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the
(6b) affairs of any religious organizations
(6c) or groups,
(6d) and vice versa.
************************************
ITEM # 5
U.S.N.Y. 1973. A law may be one "respecting the establishment of religion'
even though its consequence is not to promote a state religion, and even
though it does not aid one religion more than another but merely benefits
all religions alike. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 1.-Committee For Public Ed. and
Rel'g'ous Liberty v, Nyquist, 93 S.Ct. 2955, 413 U.S. 756, 37 L.Ed.2d 948,
concurring opinion Committee for Public Ed. & Religous Lib. v. Nyquist, 93
S,Ct. 2988, 413 U.S. 756, 37 L.Ed.2d 948, dissenting opinion 93 S.Ct, 2993,
413 U.S. 756, 37 L.Ed.2d 948.
Careful examination is required of any law challenged on establishment
grounds, with a view to ascertaining whether it furthers any of evils
against which the establishment clause protects. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend.
I.-Id.
In order to pass muster under establishment clause, law in question must
reflect a clearly secular legislative purpose, have primary effect which
neither advances nor inhibits religion and avoid excessive governmental
entanglement with religion. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. I.-Id.
**************************************************************************************
Now to understand it will require you to do some unbiased thinking.
Thus, I predict you won't understand
**************************************************************
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: FEMA PLAN TO REBUILD RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS AND OTHER RELIGIOUS FACILITIES IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, |
21 Oct 2005 07:55:20 PM |
|
|
On 21 Oct 2005 09:27:30 -0700, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
The Bill enacts into, and establishes by law,
sundry rules and proceedings relative purely to the organization and policy
of the Church incorporated, and comprehending even the election and removal
of the Minister of the same; so that no change could be made therein, by
the particular Society, or by the General Church of which it is a member,
and whose authority it recognizes. This particular Church, therefore, would
so far be a religious establishment by law; a legal force and sanction
being given to certain articles in its constitution and administration.
Here's the problem with this Bill. It definitely crosses the 1st
Amendment line. However, this has nothing to do with repairing
buildings damaged by a storm.
Using public money to "rebuild" a religious structure is
"establishing" religion
.
|
|
|
| User: "George" |
|
| Title: Re: FEMA PLAN TO REBUILD RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS AND OTHER RELIGIOUS FACILITIES IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, |
22 Oct 2005 06:59:44 AM |
|
|
<Knickkkers@Hang-up.com> wrote in message
news:0e3jl1547i5o7edjc30fc6kd7h6fikfb8p@4ax.com...
Using public money to "rebuild" a religious structure is
"establishing" religion
For heaven sake man, forget the establishment clause and show me where in
the Constitution it says Congress can spend tax dollars to build or rebuild
anything private or State owned.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: FEMA PLAN TO REBUILD RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS AND OTHER RELIGIOUS FACILITIES IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, |
23 Oct 2005 05:11:07 AM |
|
|
"jregister2" <jregister2@cox.net> wrote:
:|America was founded by very religious persons who did indeed believe that
:|without a belief in an absolute truth as the basis for a moral society, a
:|republic could not withstand the ravages of man's darker nature. Some were
:|Deist, most were Christian, all believed that the Christian Bible was the
:|standard by which moral character should be judged. To say that the
:|Founders wanted a Separation of Church and State is a misunderstanding of
:|their own writings, the Declaration included. After all, per the
:|Declaration our rights are unalienable and are endowed by our Creator
:|(Declaration of Independence, paragraph 2). And government's job is to
:|secure these God given rights for the people (also in paragraph 2). The
:|government does not grant these rights, nor have the right to take them
:|away. That is why "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
:|of religion" (Constitution of the United States, Amendment 1). Government
:|cannot dictate religion because government is not supreme. It is answerable
:|to God.
:|
:|You see, even the atheist who clamors for the eviction of God from the
:|public square is, by definition, trying to force his "religious dogma into
:|public policy like American fundamentalists are." Moral authority derives
:|from some source other than the morality endorsed by that authority. If you
:|believe there is no God, then Man becomes the absolute moral authority
:|(although, by definition, this authority is not actually absolute, but is
:|relative, since Man contests with Man for supremacy and the current winner
:|gets to enforce his view). If you do believe in God (as opposed to god(s)
:|like the Greek gods), then, whether Jehovah or Allah or some other, He must,
:|again by definition else He is not really God, have the authority to set the
:|standards of morality. You may still choose to conform or not conform, but
:|you do not get to set the standard.
:|
:|In other words, since Law is the enforcement of a Moral Code, you cannot
:|rule without endorsing a specific set of moral values - speed limits to
:|conserve energy or protect pedestrians; no cheating on school tests; murder
:|is bad; stealing is bad; etc. You cannot have Law without having Morality.
:|But since Morality is given its strength by the one who sets the moral
:|standard, you cannot have Morality without having a religious view.
:|
:|Therefore, all Law is the result of religion - whether Divine or Humanistic.
:|In short, you cannot separate Church and State, for the "Church" (even if
:|the religion in power is secular humanism or atheism) is the source, and the
:|State is the enforcement mechanism of cultural morality.
:|
:|The question is not "How do we separate church from state?" Rather, the
:|question is "Which religious view will dominate and drive the moral code of
:|the state?"
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 forgot your citations.
Or, are your opinions more valid than facts?
You do realize, do you not?, that opinion without substantiation is just
propaganda for those without critical thinking abilities and originate with
those who are attempting to manipulate rather than those who are attempting
to clarify.
*****************************************************************
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: FEMA PLAN TO REBUILD RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS AND OTHER RELIGIOUS FACILITIES IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, |
20 Oct 2005 12:53:37 PM |
|
|
wrote:
:|But if the government was going to rebuild mosques, you'd be joining
:|them for the reconstruction.
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 forgot your citations.
Or, are your opinions more valid than facts?
You do realize, do you not?, that opinion without substantiation is just
propaganda for those without critical thinking abilities and originate with
those who are attempting to manipulate rather than those who are attempting
to clarify.
*****************************************************************
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: "Tightwad" |
|
| Title: Re: FEMA PLAN TO REBUILD RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS AND OTHER RELIGIOUS FACILITIESIS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, |
20 Oct 2005 05:41:00 PM |
|
|
Bull!
The Churches belong to Americans. It is no different than rebuilding any
other place owned by Americans.
There is no prohibition in the Constitution on Christianity.
The only prohibition is on establishing a State Religion.
You anti christian Whackos and servants of Belezebub will stop at no ruse.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Opie" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: FEMA PLAN TO REBUILD RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS AND OTHER RELIGIOUS FACILITIES IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, |
20 Oct 2005 06:07:56 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 17:41:00 -0500, Tightwad
<Tightwad@plum.net> wrote:
<> Bull!
<>
<> The Churches belong to Americans. It is no
different than rebuilding any
<> other place owned by Americans.
<> There is no prohibition in the Constitution on
Christianity.
<> The only prohibition is on establishing a State
Religion.
<> You anti christian Whackos and servants of
Belezebub will stop at no ruse.
OK -- let's encourage the government rebuild the
whorehouses. And the gay bars. And the gambling
halls.
(Hey -- you didn't think for a second that New
Orleans didn't have these kind of establishments.
Did you?)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: FEMA PLAN TO REBUILD RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS AND OTHER RELIGIOUS FACILITIES IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, |
20 Oct 2005 08:42:06 PM |
|
|
In <um8gl1lt9mm7320ahkr8qim85qjm3g239m@4ax.com>, Opie
<O_Taylor@MayberryRFD.com> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 17:41:00 -0500, Tightwad <Tightwad@plum.net> wrote:
<> Bull!
<>
<> The Churches belong to Americans. It is no different than rebuilding
any
<> other place owned by Americans.
<> There is no prohibition in the Constitution on Christianity.
<> The only prohibition is on establishing a State Religion.
<> You anti christian Whackos and servants of Belezebub will stop at no
ruse.
OK -- let's encourage the government rebuild the whorehouses. And the gay
bars. And the gambling halls.
(Hey -- you didn't think for a second that New Orleans didn't have these
kind of establishments. Did you?)
Well, the gay bars don't need much rebuilding as the hurricane spared
them. Seriously, the most "decadent" part of the city survived quite well.
In fact, there was at least one bar down in the Quarter that never closed.
Now, *churches were destroyed all over the city...
(Puts a whole new spin on that "god's judgement" doncha think?)
--
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: "" |
|
| Title: Re: FEMA PLAN TO REBUILD RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS AND OTHER RELIGIOUS FACILITIES IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, |
21 Oct 2005 09:18:32 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 17:41:00 -0500, Tightwad <Tightwad@plum.net>
wrote:
Bull!
The Churches belong to Americans.
Churches are private property.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: FEMA PLAN TO REBUILD RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS AND OTHER RELIGIOUS FACILITIES IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, |
20 Oct 2005 12:43:13 PM |
|
|
I can understand why atheists wouldn't want their tax dollars being
spent to rebuild buildings that have obvious ecclesiastical features in
their architecture. However, common sense tells us that rebuilding
buildings that have been damaged by a storm is not an act of respecting
an establishment of religion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: FEMA PLAN TO REBUILD RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS AND OTHER RELIGIOUS FACILITIES IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, |
20 Oct 2005 03:55:55 PM |
|
|
In <1129830193.644405.211950@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
I can understand why atheists wouldn't want their tax dollars being spent
to rebuild buildings that have obvious ecclesiastical features in their
architecture. However, common sense tells us that rebuilding buildings
that have been damaged by a storm is not an act of respecting an
establishment of religion.
Yeah, sure. I mean, it's *so more important to rebuild churches than, oh I
don't know, THE FUCKING HOSPITALS.
Two major ones are going to have to be torn down and the entire Tenet
system out here is closed indefinitely. You'd *think FEMA could find
something better to do that fix pews...
--
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: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: FEMA PLAN TO REBUILD RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS AND OTHER RELIGIOUS FACILITIES IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, |
20 Oct 2005 03:51:42 PM |
|
|
In <j6hfl19l9vnhvilhm7t5itfrrjindg0cev@4ax.com>,
wrote:
FEMA PLAN TO REBUILD RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS AND OTHER RELIGIOUS FACILITIES IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, SAYS AMERICANS UNITED
On the other hand, given how badly FEMA is screwing up, maybe we should
*let them rebuild religious facilities...
(Not that *I'd want to go into anything they rebuilt)
--
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
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
