MAJOR discrepencies have surfaced in USSC church-state separation opinions

Sociology > Education > MAJOR discrepencies have surfaced in USSC church-state separation opinions

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 1

Topic:	Sociology > Education
User:	"fred"
Date:	03 Nov 2005 12:27:04 AM
Object:	MAJOR discrepencies have surfaced in USSC church-state separation opinions

With respect to a confused, possibly corrupt Supreme Court, note that
MAJOR discrepancies have surfaced in church-state separation opinions.
At least two Court opinions attempt to portray the Court's inclusion of
the States in the establishment clause as a genuine reflection of the
intensions of the Founding Fathers. These opinions did this by
emphasizing (possibly cherry-picking) Jefferson's "wall of separation"
writing and other period writings. These opinions are the Everson and
Reynolds opinions.
The problem with using Jefferson's coat tails to justify absolute
church-state separation, however, is that Jefferson, Mr. "wall of
separation" himself, had also reflected that the Founding Fathers had
finally decided against absolute church-state separation as evidenced
by the following extract:
"Our citizens have wisely formed themselves into one nation as to
others and several States as among themselves. To the united nation
belong our external and mutual relations; to each State, severally, the
care of our persons, our property, our reputation and religious
freedom." --Thomas Jefferson: To Rhode Island Assembly, 1801. ME 10:262
The problem shadowing the reasonable ramifications of the above extract
is that Jefferson's Danbury letter is probably the most common example
used to justify the Court's modern interpretation of the scope of the
1st Amendment. The activist Court, and the liberal media for that
matter, are letting everybody think that the 1st Amendment's
prohibitions on the federal government was also originally meant to
include the State governments. With this in mind, if you are still
reluctant to accept that Jefferson was reflecting that the States had
the power to legislate religion in the extract above, then maybe you'll
believe it when you hear it from the Supreme Court itself...
The Supreme Court slipped up with respect to inadvertently
complementing the ramifications of Jefferson's Rhode Island extract by
confirming that the States do have the power to legislate religion.
In particular, the Court dropped the ball in the Cantwell opinion,
regarded by some people as a major example of legislating from the
bench. The Cantwell opinion reasonably indicates that the 1st
Amendment's prohibitions on certain federal powers didn't include the
States until the 14th Amendment was made:
"The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the
legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such
laws."
This gaffe in the Cantwell opinion clues us about the Supreme Court's
dirty little secret that the Founding Father's had indeed delegated
power to the State governments to legislate religion; this is evidenced
by the 1st and 10th Amendments. But this is contrary to what we are
literally teaching our children today with respect to the fact that
Jefferson's Danbury letter practically stands alone concerning any
official evidence of the so-called constitutional principal of absolute
church-state separation. Taking into consideration that the Cantwell
opinion also unsurprisingly fails the 10th Amendment test, the bottom
line is that Americans have been brainwashed by activist judges via the
liberal media to accept, even if reluctantly, that absolute
church-state separation is what the Founding Fathers had decided when
the Bill of Rights was ratified.
I will also point out that corrupt, activist Justices had evidently
failed to get together to corroborate their bluffs concerning the
establishment clause and the 14th Amendment. For example, whereas the
Cantwell opinion was bold with respect to it's sleight-of-hand claim
that the 14th Amendment passed the 1st Amendment's prohibitions on
federal government powers to the States, the Everson opinion erred by
asserting that such prohibitions on State power are inherent in the
establishment clause itself; the Everson Justices forced things into
the establishment clause that are obviously not there. Their
subjective interpretation of the establishment clause is evidenced by
noting that the Everson opinion includes Jefferson's "wall of
separation" words in the same paragraph that includes the Court's "new
and improved" - but unconstitutional - interpretation of the
establishment clause. The Justices presumably referenced Jefferson
famous words to help justify their "insight" into the establishment
clause. But the folly of the Everson opinion doesn't stop here.
Note that the outcome-driven Supreme Court really screwed up with the
Everson opinion by unthinkingly referencing uncomplimentary timelines
from both the Reynolds and Cantwell opinions. This happened because
the Everson Justices unwittingly emphasized both Jefferson's writings
and the 14th Amendment, probably as a consequence of their overzealous
(nervous?) attempt to remove any doubt from our minds as to the
integrity of their bogus interpretation of the establishment clause.
The problem is that the timelines reflected by Jefferson's writings and
the 14th Amendment don't complement each other. More specifically, the
Court's excuse that the States never had the power to legislate
religion to begin with greatly contradicts that Courts excuse that the
States lost their power to legislate religion when the 14th Amendment
was made, a glaring timeline discrepancy of roughly 77 years! Again,
both these timelines are given credibility in the Everson opinion! (So
even crooked Supreme Court Justices don't seem to be able to get their
fabrications to agree.)
The bottom line is that the People will know that that the Founding
Fathers had delegated government power to the States to legislate
religion by means of the 1st and 10th Amendments. The People will know
that the Supreme Court has ignored the intentions of the Founding
Fathers concerning our religious freedoms.
Reynolds v. United States 1878
http://tinyurl.com/aeqqe
Cantwell v. State of Connecticut 1940
http://tinyurl.com/bvoc3
Jones v. City of Opelika 1942
http://tinyurl.com/8dzqg
Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing TP 1947
http://tinyurl.com/8q3d8
.

User: "ouroboros rex"
Title: Re: MAJOR discrepencies have surfaced in USSC church-state separation opinions	03 Nov 2005 10:35:19 AM

"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1130999224.635684.220000@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

With respect to a confused, possibly corrupt Supreme Court, note that
MAJOR discrepancies have surfaced in church-state separation opinions.

At least two Court opinions attempt to portray the Court's inclusion of
the States in the establishment clause as a genuine reflection of the
intensions of the Founding Fathers. These opinions did this by
emphasizing (possibly cherry-picking) Jefferson's "wall of separation"
writing and other period writings. These opinions are the Everson and
Reynolds opinions.

The problem with using Jefferson's coat tails to justify absolute
church-state separation, however, is that Jefferson, Mr. "wall of
separation" himself, had also reflected that the Founding Fathers had
finally decided against absolute church-state separation as evidenced
by the following extract:

"Our citizens have wisely formed themselves into one nation as to
others and several States as among themselves. To the united nation
belong our external and mutual relations; to each State, severally, the
care of our persons, our property, our reputation and religious
freedom." --Thomas Jefferson: To Rhode Island Assembly, 1801. ME 10:262

The problem shadowing the reasonable ramifications of the above extract
is that Jefferson's Danbury letter is probably the most common example
used to justify the Court's modern interpretation of the scope of the
1st Amendment. The activist Court, and the liberal media for that
matter, are letting everybody think that the 1st Amendment's
prohibitions on the federal government was also originally meant to
include the State governments. With this in mind, if you are still
reluctant to accept that Jefferson was reflecting that the States had
the power to legislate religion in the extract above, then maybe you'll
believe it when you hear it from the Supreme Court itself...

The Supreme Court slipped up with respect to inadvertently
complementing the ramifications of Jefferson's Rhode Island extract by
confirming that the States do have the power to legislate religion.
In particular, the Court dropped the ball in the Cantwell opinion,
regarded by some people as a major example of legislating from the
bench. The Cantwell opinion reasonably indicates that the 1st
Amendment's prohibitions on certain federal powers didn't include the
States until the 14th Amendment was made:

"The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the
legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such
laws."

This gaffe in the Cantwell opinion clues us about the Supreme Court's
dirty little secret that the Founding Father's had indeed delegated
power to the State governments to legislate religion; this is evidenced
by the 1st and 10th Amendments. But this is contrary to what we are
literally teaching our children today with respect to the fact that
Jefferson's Danbury letter practically stands alone concerning any
official evidence of the so-called constitutional principal of absolute
church-state separation. Taking into consideration that the Cantwell
opinion also unsurprisingly fails the 10th Amendment test, the bottom
line is that Americans have been brainwashed by activist judges via the
liberal media to accept, even if reluctantly, that absolute
church-state separation is what the Founding Fathers had decided when
the Bill of Rights was ratified.

I will also point out that corrupt, activist Justices had evidently
failed to get together to corroborate their bluffs concerning the
establishment clause and the 14th Amendment. For example, whereas the
Cantwell opinion was bold with respect to it's sleight-of-hand claim
that the 14th Amendment passed the 1st Amendment's prohibitions on
federal government powers to the States, the Everson opinion erred by
asserting that such prohibitions on State power are inherent in the
establishment clause itself; the Everson Justices forced things into
the establishment clause that are obviously not there. Their
subjective interpretation of the establishment clause is evidenced by
noting that the Everson opinion includes Jefferson's "wall of
separation" words in the same paragraph that includes the Court's "new
and improved" - but unconstitutional - interpretation of the
establishment clause. The Justices presumably referenced Jefferson
famous words to help justify their "insight" into the establishment
clause. But the folly of the Everson opinion doesn't stop here.

Note that the outcome-driven Supreme Court really screwed up with the
Everson opinion by unthinkingly referencing uncomplimentary timelines
from both the Reynolds and Cantwell opinions. This happened because
the Everson Justices unwittingly emphasized both Jefferson's writings
and the 14th Amendment, probably as a consequence of their overzealous
(nervous?) attempt to remove any doubt from our minds as to the
integrity of their bogus interpretation of the establishment clause.

The problem is that the timelines reflected by Jefferson's writings and
the 14th Amendment don't complement each other. More specifically, the
Court's excuse that the States never had the power to legislate
religion to begin with greatly contradicts that Courts excuse that the
States lost their power to legislate religion when the 14th Amendment
was made, a glaring timeline discrepancy of roughly 77 years! Again,
both these timelines are given credibility in the Everson opinion! (So
even crooked Supreme Court Justices don't seem to be able to get their
fabrications to agree.)

The bottom line is that the People will know that that the Founding
Fathers had delegated government power to the States to legislate
religion by means of the 1st and 10th Amendments. The People will know
that the Supreme Court has ignored the intentions of the Founding
Fathers concerning our religious freedoms.

Reynolds v. United States 1878
http://tinyurl.com/aeqqe

Cantwell v. State of Connecticut 1940
http://tinyurl.com/bvoc3

Jones v. City of Opelika 1942
http://tinyurl.com/8dzqg

Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing TP 1947
http://tinyurl.com/8q3d8

rofl Sorry, Fred, no stoning of gays in the streets this year.
.

User: "Gray Shockley"
Title: Re: MAJOR discrepencies have surfaced in USSC church-state separation opinions	03 Nov 2005 10:10:32 PM

On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 10:35:19 -0600, ouroboros rex wrote:

"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1130999224.635684.220000@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

With respect to a confused, possibly corrupt Supreme Court, note that
MAJOR discrepancies have surfaced in church-state separation opinions.

At least two Court opinions attempt to portray the Court's inclusion of
the States in the establishment clause as a genuine reflection of the
intensions of the Founding Fathers. These opinions did this by
emphasizing (possibly cherry-picking) Jefferson's "wall of separation"
writing and other period writings. These opinions are the Everson and
Reynolds opinions.

The problem with using Jefferson's coat tails to justify absolute
church-state separation, however, is that Jefferson, Mr. "wall of
separation" himself, had also reflected that the Founding Fathers had
finally decided against absolute church-state separation as evidenced
by the following extract:

"Our citizens have wisely formed themselves into one nation as to
others and several States as among themselves. To the united nation
belong our external and mutual relations; to each State, severally, the
care of our persons, our property, our reputation and religious
freedom." --Thomas Jefferson: To Rhode Island Assembly, 1801. ME 10:262

The problem shadowing the reasonable ramifications of the above extract
is that Jefferson's Danbury letter is probably the most common example
used to justify the Court's modern interpretation of the scope of the
1st Amendment. The activist Court, and the liberal media for that
matter, are letting everybody think that the 1st Amendment's
prohibitions on the federal government was also originally meant to
include the State governments. With this in mind, if you are still
reluctant to accept that Jefferson was reflecting that the States had
the power to legislate religion in the extract above, then maybe you'll
believe it when you hear it from the Supreme Court itself...

The Supreme Court slipped up with respect to inadvertently
complementing the ramifications of Jefferson's Rhode Island extract by
confirming that the States do have the power to legislate religion.
In particular, the Court dropped the ball in the Cantwell opinion,
regarded by some people as a major example of legislating from the
bench. The Cantwell opinion reasonably indicates that the 1st
Amendment's prohibitions on certain federal powers didn't include the
States until the 14th Amendment was made:

"The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the
legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such
laws."

This gaffe in the Cantwell opinion clues us about the Supreme Court's
dirty little secret that the Founding Father's had indeed delegated
power to the State governments to legislate religion; this is evidenced
by the 1st and 10th Amendments. But this is contrary to what we are
literally teaching our children today with respect to the fact that
Jefferson's Danbury letter practically stands alone concerning any
official evidence of the so-called constitutional principal of absolute
church-state separation. Taking into consideration that the Cantwell
opinion also unsurprisingly fails the 10th Amendment test, the bottom
line is that Americans have been brainwashed by activist judges via the
liberal media to accept, even if reluctantly, that absolute
church-state separation is what the Founding Fathers had decided when
the Bill of Rights was ratified.

I will also point out that corrupt, activist Justices had evidently
failed to get together to corroborate their bluffs concerning the
establishment clause and the 14th Amendment. For example, whereas the
Cantwell opinion was bold with respect to it's sleight-of-hand claim
that the 14th Amendment passed the 1st Amendment's prohibitions on
federal government powers to the States, the Everson opinion erred by
asserting that such prohibitions on State power are inherent in the
establishment clause itself; the Everson Justices forced things into
the establishment clause that are obviously not there. Their
subjective interpretation of the establishment clause is evidenced by
noting that the Everson opinion includes Jefferson's "wall of
separation" words in the same paragraph that includes the Court's "new
and improved" - but unconstitutional - interpretation of the
establishment clause. The Justices presumably referenced Jefferson
famous words to help justify their "insight" into the establishment
clause. But the folly of the Everson opinion doesn't stop here.

Note that the outcome-driven Supreme Court really screwed up with the
Everson opinion by unthinkingly referencing uncomplimentary timelines
from both the Reynolds and Cantwell opinions. This happened because
the Everson Justices unwittingly emphasized both Jefferson's writings
and the 14th Amendment, probably as a consequence of their overzealous
(nervous?) attempt to remove any doubt from our minds as to the
integrity of their bogus interpretation of the establishment clause.

The problem is that the timelines reflected by Jefferson's writings and
the 14th Amendment don't complement each other. More specifically, the
Court's excuse that the States never had the power to legislate
religion to begin with greatly contradicts that Courts excuse that the
States lost their power to legislate religion when the 14th Amendment
was made, a glaring timeline discrepancy of roughly 77 years! Again,
both these timelines are given credibility in the Everson opinion! (So
even crooked Supreme Court Justices don't seem to be able to get their
fabrications to agree.)

The bottom line is that the People will know that that the Founding
Fathers had delegated government power to the States to legislate
religion by means of the 1st and 10th Amendments. The People will know
that the Supreme Court has ignored the intentions of the Founding
Fathers concerning our religious freedoms.

Reynolds v. United States 1878
http://tinyurl.com/aeqqe

Cantwell v. State of Connecticut 1940
http://tinyurl.com/bvoc3

Jones v. City of Opelika 1942
http://tinyurl.com/8dzqg

Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing TP 1947
http://tinyurl.com/8q3d8

rofl Sorry, Fred, no stoning of gays in the streets this year.

godhatesfreds.wak
.

User: "fred"
Title: Re: MAJOR discrepencies have surfaced in USSC church-state separation opinions	03 Nov 2005 11:39:16 AM

ouroboros rex wrote:

"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1130999224.635684.220000@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

With respect to a confused, possibly corrupt Supreme Court, note that
MAJOR discrepancies have surfaced in church-state separation opinions.

At least two Court opinions attempt to portray the Court's inclusion of
the States in the establishment clause as a genuine reflection of the
intensions of the Founding Fathers. These opinions did this by
emphasizing (possibly cherry-picking) Jefferson's "wall of separation"
writing and other period writings. These opinions are the Everson and
Reynolds opinions.

The problem with using Jefferson's coat tails to justify absolute
church-state separation, however, is that Jefferson, Mr. "wall of
separation" himself, had also reflected that the Founding Fathers had
finally decided against absolute church-state separation as evidenced
by the following extract:

"Our citizens have wisely formed themselves into one nation as to
others and several States as among themselves. To the united nation
belong our external and mutual relations; to each State, severally, the
care of our persons, our property, our reputation and religious
freedom." --Thomas Jefferson: To Rhode Island Assembly, 1801. ME 10:262

The problem shadowing the reasonable ramifications of the above extract
is that Jefferson's Danbury letter is probably the most common example
used to justify the Court's modern interpretation of the scope of the
1st Amendment. The activist Court, and the liberal media for that
matter, are letting everybody think that the 1st Amendment's
prohibitions on the federal government was also originally meant to
include the State governments. With this in mind, if you are still
reluctant to accept that Jefferson was reflecting that the States had
the power to legislate religion in the extract above, then maybe you'll
believe it when you hear it from the Supreme Court itself...

The Supreme Court slipped up with respect to inadvertently
complementing the ramifications of Jefferson's Rhode Island extract by
confirming that the States do have the power to legislate religion.
In particular, the Court dropped the ball in the Cantwell opinion,
regarded by some people as a major example of legislating from the
bench. The Cantwell opinion reasonably indicates that the 1st
Amendment's prohibitions on certain federal powers didn't include the
States until the 14th Amendment was made:

"The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the
legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such
laws."

This gaffe in the Cantwell opinion clues us about the Supreme Court's
dirty little secret that the Founding Father's had indeed delegated
power to the State governments to legislate religion; this is evidenced
by the 1st and 10th Amendments. But this is contrary to what we are
literally teaching our children today with respect to the fact that
Jefferson's Danbury letter practically stands alone concerning any
official evidence of the so-called constitutional principal of absolute
church-state separation. Taking into consideration that the Cantwell
opinion also unsurprisingly fails the 10th Amendment test, the bottom
line is that Americans have been brainwashed by activist judges via the
liberal media to accept, even if reluctantly, that absolute
church-state separation is what the Founding Fathers had decided when
the Bill of Rights was ratified.

I will also point out that corrupt, activist Justices had evidently
failed to get together to corroborate their bluffs concerning the
establishment clause and the 14th Amendment. For example, whereas the
Cantwell opinion was bold with respect to it's sleight-of-hand claim
that the 14th Amendment passed the 1st Amendment's prohibitions on
federal government powers to the States, the Everson opinion erred by
asserting that such prohibitions on State power are inherent in the
establishment clause itself; the Everson Justices forced things into
the establishment clause that are obviously not there. Their
subjective interpretation of the establishment clause is evidenced by
noting that the Everson opinion includes Jefferson's "wall of
separation" words in the same paragraph that includes the Court's "new
and improved" - but unconstitutional - interpretation of the
establishment clause. The Justices presumably referenced Jefferson
famous words to help justify their "insight" into the establishment
clause. But the folly of the Everson opinion doesn't stop here.

Note that the outcome-driven Supreme Court really screwed up with the
Everson opinion by unthinkingly referencing uncomplimentary timelines
from both the Reynolds and Cantwell opinions. This happened because
the Everson Justices unwittingly emphasized both Jefferson's writings
and the 14th Amendment, probably as a consequence of their overzealous
(nervous?) attempt to remove any doubt from our minds as to the
integrity of their bogus interpretation of the establishment clause.

The problem is that the timelines reflected by Jefferson's writings and
the 14th Amendment don't complement each other. More specifically, the
Court's excuse that the States never had the power to legislate
religion to begin with greatly contradicts that Courts excuse that the
States lost their power to legislate religion when the 14th Amendment
was made, a glaring timeline discrepancy of roughly 77 years! Again,
both these timelines are given credibility in the Everson opinion! (So
even crooked Supreme Court Justices don't seem to be able to get their
fabrications to agree.)

The bottom line is that the People will know that that the Founding
Fathers had delegated government power to the States to legislate
religion by means of the 1st and 10th Amendments. The People will know
that the Supreme Court has ignored the intentions of the Founding
Fathers concerning our religious freedoms.

Reynolds v. United States 1878
http://tinyurl.com/aeqqe

Cantwell v. State of Connecticut 1940
http://tinyurl.com/bvoc3

Jones v. City of Opelika 1942
http://tinyurl.com/8dzqg

Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing TP 1947
http://tinyurl.com/8q3d8

rofl Sorry, Fred, no stoning of gays in the streets this year.

Is that the best you can do?
.

User: "Server 13"
Title: Re: MAJOR discrepencies have surfaced in USSC church-state separationopinions	03 Nov 2005 03:24:37 PM

fred wrote:

ouroboros rex wrote:

"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1130999224.635684.220000@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

With respect to a confused, possibly corrupt Supreme Court, note that
MAJOR discrepancies have surfaced in church-state separation opinions.

At least two Court opinions attempt to portray the Court's inclusion of
the States in the establishment clause as a genuine reflection of the
intensions of the Founding Fathers. These opinions did this by
emphasizing (possibly cherry-picking) Jefferson's "wall of separation"
writing and other period writings. These opinions are the Everson and
Reynolds opinions.

The problem with using Jefferson's coat tails to justify absolute
church-state separation, however, is that Jefferson, Mr. "wall of
separation" himself, had also reflected that the Founding Fathers had
finally decided against absolute church-state separation as evidenced
by the following extract:

"Our citizens have wisely formed themselves into one nation as to
others and several States as among themselves. To the united nation
belong our external and mutual relations; to each State, severally, the
care of our persons, our property, our reputation and religious
freedom." --Thomas Jefferson: To Rhode Island Assembly, 1801. ME 10:262

The problem shadowing the reasonable ramifications of the above extract
is that Jefferson's Danbury letter is probably the most common example
used to justify the Court's modern interpretation of the scope of the
1st Amendment. The activist Court, and the liberal media for that
matter, are letting everybody think that the 1st Amendment's
prohibitions on the federal government was also originally meant to
include the State governments. With this in mind, if you are still
reluctant to accept that Jefferson was reflecting that the States had
the power to legislate religion in the extract above, then maybe you'll
believe it when you hear it from the Supreme Court itself...

The Supreme Court slipped up with respect to inadvertently
complementing the ramifications of Jefferson's Rhode Island extract by
confirming that the States do have the power to legislate religion.
In particular, the Court dropped the ball in the Cantwell opinion,
regarded by some people as a major example of legislating from the
bench. The Cantwell opinion reasonably indicates that the 1st
Amendment's prohibitions on certain federal powers didn't include the
States until the 14th Amendment was made:

"The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the
legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such
laws."

This gaffe in the Cantwell opinion clues us about the Supreme Court's
dirty little secret that the Founding Father's had indeed delegated
power to the State governments to legislate religion; this is evidenced
by the 1st and 10th Amendments. But this is contrary to what we are
literally teaching our children today with respect to the fact that
Jefferson's Danbury letter practically stands alone concerning any
official evidence of the so-called constitutional principal of absolute
church-state separation. Taking into consideration that the Cantwell
opinion also unsurprisingly fails the 10th Amendment test, the bottom
line is that Americans have been brainwashed by activist judges via the
liberal media to accept, even if reluctantly, that absolute
church-state separation is what the Founding Fathers had decided when
the Bill of Rights was ratified.

I will also point out that corrupt, activist Justices had evidently
failed to get together to corroborate their bluffs concerning the
establishment clause and the 14th Amendment. For example, whereas the
Cantwell opinion was bold with respect to it's sleight-of-hand claim
that the 14th Amendment passed the 1st Amendment's prohibitions on
federal government powers to the States, the Everson opinion erred by
asserting that such prohibitions on State power are inherent in the
establishment clause itself; the Everson Justices forced things into
the establishment clause that are obviously not there. Their
subjective interpretation of the establishment clause is evidenced by
noting that the Everson opinion includes Jefferson's "wall of
separation" words in the same paragraph that includes the Court's "new
and improved" - but unconstitutional - interpretation of the
establishment clause. The Justices presumably referenced Jefferson
famous words to help justify their "insight" into the establishment
clause. But the folly of the Everson opinion doesn't stop here.

Note that the outcome-driven Supreme Court really screwed up with the
Everson opinion by unthinkingly referencing uncomplimentary timelines
from both the Reynolds and Cantwell opinions. This happened because
the Everson Justices unwittingly emphasized both Jefferson's writings
and the 14th Amendment, probably as a consequence of their overzealous
(nervous?) attempt to remove any doubt from our minds as to the
integrity of their bogus interpretation of the establishment clause.

The problem is that the timelines reflected by Jefferson's writings and
the 14th Amendment don't complement each other. More specifically, the
Court's excuse that the States never had the power to legislate
religion to begin with greatly contradicts that Courts excuse that the
States lost their power to legislate religion when the 14th Amendment
was made, a glaring timeline discrepancy of roughly 77 years! Again,
both these timelines are given credibility in the Everson opinion! (So
even crooked Supreme Court Justices don't seem to be able to get their
fabrications to agree.)

The bottom line is that the People will know that that the Founding
Fathers had delegated government power to the States to legislate
religion by means of the 1st and 10th Amendments. The People will know
that the Supreme Court has ignored the intentions of the Founding
Fathers concerning our religious freedoms.

Reynolds v. United States 1878
http://tinyurl.com/aeqqe

Cantwell v. State of Connecticut 1940
http://tinyurl.com/bvoc3

Jones v. City of Opelika 1942
http://tinyurl.com/8dzqg

Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing TP 1947
http://tinyurl.com/8q3d8

rofl Sorry, Fred, no stoning of gays in the streets this year.

Is that the best you can do?

Exposing your buddies' actual motivations? No, I can go get their own
articles. Shall I?
.

User: "Mickey"
Title: Re: MAJOR discrepencies have surfaced in USSC church-state separationopinions	03 Nov 2005 11:56:40 AM

wrote:

On 2 Nov 2005 22:27:04 -0800, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

The "founding fathers intentions" are NOT law.

The founding fathers intentions are generally "guidelines" and are
viewed in context of THEIR times

Oh, I get it now. If something written by one of the founding fathers
supports your position it's cool, if it doesn't it's irrelevant.
Now I think I get it.
Someone who reads the constitution as it was written, giving the text
its original meaning is called a textualist, a subcategory of
originalist. This person is outdated and irrelevant.
Someone who reads the constitution as it was written, but attempts
through various means to understand what the writers intended is another
form of originalist, but one who cleaves to the principle of original
intent rather than original meaning. This is person is also outdated and
irrelevant.
Someone who reads the constitution and tries to figure out how it
applies to contemporary life and who then, through legal means, is
supposed to try to effect an accomodation is called a LEGISLATOR. People
nominally filling this position are members of the perpetually idle
class and are dining at the public tit.
Someone who reads the constitution and then rationalizes a way for the
court to do whatever he wants done but can't get the legislature to do
is a hero of the self-named intelligencia... and beneath contempt.
There is huge danger in attempting to define the context of a time and
equally large danger in attempting to judge how or even if something has
been altered materially by a change in it's context. Somethings are
right and proper at the moment of their creation and remain so for long
periods of time in the face of unpopularity, changing times, and
changing context. As an exemplar, I would point the gentle reader to the
life and work of Giordano Bruno.
Just a thought.
Mickey
.

User: "Sid See"
Title: Re: MAJOR discrepencies have surfaced in USSC church-state separation opinions	03 Nov 2005 12:33:19 PM

fred <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1130999224.635684.220000@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

It takes convoluted thinking to transpose
"religious freedom" into becoming an
antagonistic position against an absolute
church-state separation.
No Church or establishment of religion in
America has a constitutional right to impose
their beliefs and laws onto the public-at-large.
Religious tyranny is not a right. To use the
guise of religious freedom to usurp other's
right for freedom FROM religious tyranny,
is indeed most dishonest and corrupt.
Let's look to President James Madison, the
"father" of the Bill if Rights to shed some
realistic light on this...
He said (and I quote, in part, in a veto
message written on Feb. 21, 1811, to the
House of Representatives):
"...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 the United
States which declares 'Congress shall make
no law respecting a religious establishment.'"
From this, a significant conclusion can be
drawn:
Madison believed that a distinct separation
of religion from governmental function is
essential.
The Christian Coalition is an EVIL, un-
American and un-Christian organization,
who's intent is Political power, not redemption.
It is the would-be assassin, and charity
fraudster, Pat Robertson who is behind the
anti-American drive to remove the separation
between religion and Federal and State
governments.
Only fools follow the corrupt doctrine this
fraudulent, hypocritical, megalomaniac TV
preacher.
A crazy TV preacher...
Good Grief!
~S
.

User: "fred"
Title: Re: MAJOR discrepencies have surfaced in USSC church-state separation opinions	03 Nov 2005 01:56:07 PM

Sid See wrote:

fred <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1130999224.635684.220000@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

It takes convoluted thinking to transpose
"religious freedom" into becoming an
antagonistic position against an absolute
church-state separation.

You ignore that absolute church-state separation is a relatively recent
myth created by anti-religious expression activist Justices on the
Supreme Court. This is evidenced in the Cantwell opinion which
reflects that absolute church-separation didn't exist in this country
until it was unlawfully created by legislating from the bench:
"The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the
legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such
laws." -- Cantwell v. The State of Connecticut 1940.

No Church or establishment of religion in
America has a constitutional right to impose
their beliefs and laws onto the public-at-large.

I agree. However, although the Founding Fathers undoubtedly expected
the states to use their 10th Amendment protected power to legislate
religion to cultivate religious expression, some States abused their
powers by abridging personal federal rights. But the 14th Amendment
put a stop to this abuse of power. The 14th Amendment was made to
prohibit the States from using their 10th Amendment protected sovereign
powers to legislate religion to make laws that abridge the federal
rights of US citizens.
So even though activist Justices and the liberal press has misled the
American people into thinking otherwise, the 10th Amendment gives the
States the power to authorize public schools to lead classroom
discussions about the pros and cons of evolution, creationism and
irreducible complexity, for example. However, such classes should not
be mandatory because of people's 14th Amendment protections. Honest
Justices have stated that it is the Court's job to balance the 10
Amendment protected sovereign powers of the States with the 14th
Amendment guarantee of personal rights as indicated by the following
extract from the Jones v. City of Opelika opinion:
"Conflicts in the exercise of rights arise and the conflicting forces
seek adjustments in the courts, as do these parties, claiming on the
one side the freedom of religion, speech and the press, guaranteed by
the Fourteenth Amendment,11 and on the other the right to employ the
sovereign power explicitly reserved to the State by the Tenth Amendment
to ensure orderly living without which constitutional guarantees of
civil liberties would be a mockery." -- Jones v. City of Opelika 1942.
On the other hand, activist Justices who hate religious expression try
to sweep the 10th Amendment under the carpet. This is evidenced by the
Everson and Cantwell opinions which ignore the 10th Amendment.

Religious tyranny is not a right. To use the
guise of religious freedom to usurp other's
right for freedom FROM religious tyranny,
is indeed most dishonest and corrupt.

Agreed, religious tyranny is not a right. The problem is that some
states abused their unlimited 10th Amendment sovereign powers that the
Founding Fathers had undoubtedly hoped the states would use to
cultivate religious expression. The 14th Amendment put general limits
on the legislative powers of the States to stop such abuse.

Let's look to President James Madison, the
"father" of the Bill if Rights to shed some
realistic light on this...

He said (and I quote, in part, in a veto
message written on Feb. 21, 1811, to the
House of Representatives):

"...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 the United
States which declares 'Congress shall make
no law respecting a religious establishment.'"

From this, a significant conclusion can be
drawn:

Madison believed that a distinct separation
of religion from governmental function is
essential.

But Madison's beliefs, just like the intentions of the Founding
Fathers, are not law.

The Christian Coalition is an EVIL, un-
American and un-Christian organization,
who's intent is Political power, not redemption.

As I've stated elsewhere, I believe that the Christian Right, along
with the liberal Left, are wrong concerning their ideas about the
Constitution.

It is the would-be assassin, and charity
fraudster, Pat Robertson who is behind the
anti-American drive to remove the separation
between religion and Federal and State
governments.

Again, the Cantwell opinion shows that the Founding Fathers had indeed
trusted the States with the power to legislate religion. So you are
wrong in thinking that government power to legislate religion is a bad
thing.

Only fools follow the corrupt doctrine this
fraudulent, hypocritical, megalomaniac TV
preacher.

Haven't watched the man for years.

A crazy TV preacher...

Good Grief!

~S

User: ""
Title: Re: MAJOR discrepencies have surfaced in USSC church-state separation opinions	03 Nov 2005 02:50:38 PM

Freddie, you ignore, among other things including good English, that
the 14th Amendment supplemented and superseded the 1st Amendment,
applying it to the states. Thank goodness, and the intellect of some
smart people, among whom you cannot be counted, either for intellect or
smartness.
.

User: "Sid See"
Title: Re: MAJOR discrepencies have surfaced in USSC church-state separation opinions	03 Nov 2005 04:06:22 PM

fred <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131047767.015657.145790@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Sid See wrote:

It takes convoluted thinking to transpose
"religious freedom" into becoming an
antagonistic position against an absolute
church-state separation.

You ignore that absolute church-state separation is a relatively recent
myth created by anti-religious expression activist Justices on the
Supreme Court.

I cannot ignore the fact that you are full of *****!
OK?
.

User: "cpt banjo"
Title: Re: MAJOR discrepencies have surfaced in USSC church-state separation opinions	03 Nov 2005 02:15:26 PM

fred wrote:

Religious expression doesn't need the Government's "cultivation". It
does quite nicely, thank you, in churches, homes, and other private
places.

On the other hand, activist Justices who hate religious expression try
to sweep the 10th Amendment under the carpet.

Where do you get this inane notion that governmental neutrality amounts
to a hatred of religious expression? Is your faith so unpersuasive
that it needs the Government to help promote it? What part of "It's
the Government, stupid" do you not comprehend?
.

User: "fred"
Title: Re: MAJOR discrepencies have surfaced in USSC church-state separation opinions	03 Nov 2005 04:30:15 PM

cpt banjo wrote:

fred wrote:

Religious expression doesn't need the Government's "cultivation". It
does quite nicely, thank you, in churches, homes, and other private
places.

Shame on you! :^(
You snipped my example about things like the pros and cons of
evolution, creationism and irreducible complexity. I guess you can't
handle the reality that the 10th Amendment sovereign powers of the
States authorizes the States to lead classroom discussions of such
things in public schools.

On the other hand, activist Justices who hate religious expression try
to sweep the 10th Amendment under the carpet.

You are ignoring that judges and the liberal media are trying to
deceive everybody about government religious neutrality. This is
evidenced by the fact that activist judges and the liberal media
constantly refer to Jefferson's Danbury letter to mislead Americans to
believe that absolute religious neutrality is what the Founding Fathers
had finally decided on. But the fact is that the Cantwell opinion
shows that the States have 10th Amendment protected sovereign powers to
legislate religion as evidenced by this unconstitutional statement:
"The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the
legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such
laws." -- Cantwell v. The State of Connecticut 1940
Regarding the unconstitutionality of the above extract, note that,
unlike the 21st Amendment which explicitly repealed the 18th Amendment,
the Justices didn't have the guts to mention the 10th Amendment in the
Cantwell opinion. Their problem was that only Congress can lawfully
repeal an Amendment, the 10th Amendment in this case. So the best the
outcome-driven Justices could do is legislate from the bench as
evidenced by the extract above.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: MAJOR discrepencies have surfaced in USSC church-state separation opinions	04 Nov 2005 02:37:04 PM

On 3 Nov 2005 14:30:15 -0800, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

You snipped my example about things like the pros and cons of
evolution, creationism and irreducible complexity. I guess you can't
handle the reality that the 10th Amendment sovereign powers of the
States authorizes the States to lead classroom discussions of such
things in public schools.

They can be taught in public schools, freddie. And are.

You are ignoring that judges and the liberal media are trying to
deceive everybody about government religious neutrality.

How can you "deceive" supreme court rulings. The USSC has ruled
(interpreted) cases coming before it using a doctrine. Tha't's their
job. You cannot say they cannot rule as such based on a "letter"

This is
evidenced by the fact that activist judges and the liberal media
constantly refer to Jefferson's Danbury letter

See, there you go again with "a letter"
A "letter" isn't law.

"The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof.

Subsequent rulings have interpreted that "establishment" is done by
several ways. You can "establish" by funding.

Justices didn't have the guts to mention the 10th Amendment in the
Cantwell opinion.

Cantwell was about funding
.

User: "fred"
Title: Re: MAJOR discrepencies have surfaced in USSC church-state separation opinions	03 Nov 2005 06:16:45 PM

cpt banjo wrote:

fred wrote:

Religious expression doesn't need the Government's "cultivation". It
does quite nicely, thank you, in churches, homes, and other private
places.

You are unwittingly unconstitutionally stifling free speech by using
location as a test to determine what can and cannot be said.

On the other hand, activist Justices who hate religious expression try
to sweep the 10th Amendment under the carpet.

"Government" neutrality oversimplifies the fact that the 10th Amendment
reserved government power to legislate religion for the States since
the 1st Amendment explicitly prohibited this power only to Congress.
The fact that the Court recognized that the States have the power to
legislate religion is evidenced by the unconstitutional extract below
from the Cantwell opinion:
"The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the
legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such
laws." -- Cantwell v. State of Connecticut 1940
Regardless that activist Justices didn't have the guts to mention the
10th Amendment in the Cantwell Opinion, the Court effectively repealed
the 10th Amendment with the above statement. But given that only
Congress can lawfully amend the Constitution and repeal amendments, the
above extract amounts to sleight-of-hand legislating from the bench.
.

User: "Sid See"
Title: Re: MAJOR discrepencies have surfaced in USSC church-state separation opinions	03 Nov 2005 08:21:48 PM

fred <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131063405.153169.176250@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

cpt banjo wrote:

fred wrote:

Religious expression doesn't need the Government's "cultivation". It
does quite nicely, thank you, in churches, homes, and other private
places.

You are unwittingly unconstitutionally stifling free speech by using
location as a test to determine what can and cannot be said.

You are unwittingly stifling constitutionality
by applying goofy logic...
~S
.

User: ""
Title: Re: MAJOR discrepencies have surfaced in USSC church-state separation opinions	03 Nov 2005 03:18:41 PM

fred wrote:

So even though activist Justices and the liberal press has misled the
American people into thinking otherwise, the 10th Amendment gives the
States the power to authorize public schools to lead classroom
discussions about the pros and cons of evolution, creationism and
irreducible complexity, for example.

Just to be clear, "lead[ing] classroom discussions about the pros and
cons of evolution, creationism and irreducible complexity" can be done
today with no problem.
What the Dover statement did was to fallaciously denigrate the
scientific status of evolution, and to imply that ID was a valid
scientific concept. This bears no resemblance to the activity you
described above.
.

User: "fred"
Title: Re: MAJOR discrepencies have surfaced in USSC church-state separation opinions	03 Nov 2005 04:03:08 PM

wrote:

fred wrote:

Just to be clear, "lead[ing] classroom discussions about the pros and
cons of evolution, creationism and irreducible complexity" can be done
today with no problem.

What the Dover statement did was to fallaciously denigrate the
scientific status of evolution, and to imply that ID was a valid
scientific concept. This bears no resemblance to the activity you
described above.

The mere act of regulating expression as to whether or not something is
scientifically valid is hindering free speech. I've complained
elsewhere that atheists are necessarily having to rely on courtroom
drama techniques as opposed to scientific methods to try to sway the
"jury" that evolution is based on solid scientific methods. The truth
is that Evolution "science" has its share of guesswork. I'm still
waiting for evolutionists to refute Behe's examples of irreducible
complexity with repeatable experiments based on the scientific method
as opposed to lawyer talk.
.

User: "Sid See"
Title: Re: MAJOR discrepencies have surfaced in USSC church-state separation opinions	03 Nov 2005 05:08:05 PM

fred <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131055388.290202.91370@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Victor.Purinton@gmail.com wrote:

fred wrote:

Just to be clear, "lead[ing] classroom discussions about the pros and
cons of evolution, creationism and irreducible complexity" can be done
today with no problem.

What the Dover statement did was to fallaciously denigrate the
scientific status of evolution, and to imply that ID was a valid
scientific concept. This bears no resemblance to the activity you
described above.

Atheists are not exlusive in the rejection of
Creationism and IC.
What the Hell, let's just settle this sillyness
once and for all:
Please give us irrefutable evidence that
proves the existence of God...
Or, STFU!
~S
----
Only idiots believe science embraces
unsupportable beliefs.
If the world was the result of "Intelligent
design" then the designer fucked up, as
there is nothing "intelligent" in designing a
world full of hatred, greed, pain, suffering,
and religious fanatics.
.

User: "fred"
Title: Re: MAJOR discrepencies have surfaced in USSC church-state separation opinions	03 Nov 2005 05:51:43 PM

Sid See wrote:

fred <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131055388.290202.91370@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Victor.Purinton@gmail.com wrote:

fred wrote:

Just to be clear, "lead[ing] classroom discussions about the pros and
cons of evolution, creationism and irreducible complexity" can be done
today with no problem.

What the Dover statement did was to fallaciously denigrate the
scientific status of evolution, and to imply that ID was a valid
scientific concept. This bears no resemblance to the activity you
described above.

Is this the best you can do with respect to addressing my assertion
concerning unconstitutional tests on what is said in the classroom?

~S
----
Only idiots believe science embraces
unsupportable beliefs.

If the world was the result of "Intelligent
design" then the designer fucked up, as
there is nothing "intelligent" in designing a
world full of hatred, greed, pain, suffering,
and religious fanatics.

User: "Sid See"
Title: Re: MAJOR discrepencies have surfaced in USSC church-state separation opinions	03 Nov 2005 07:50:17 PM

fred <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131061903.445620.86630@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Sid See wrote:

fred <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131055388.290202.91370@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Victor.Purinton@gmail.com wrote:

fred wrote:

Just to be clear, "lead[ing] classroom discussions about the pros and
cons of evolution, creationism and irreducible complexity" can be done
today with no problem.

What the Dover statement did was to fallaciously denigrate the
scientific status of evolution, and to imply that ID was a valid
scientific concept. This bears no resemblance to the activity you
described above.

Atheists are not exclusive in the rejection of
Creationism and IC.

What the Hell, let's just settle this silliness
once and for all:

Please give us irrefutable evidence that
proves the existence of God...

Or, STFU!

Is this the best you can do with respect to addressing my assertion
concerning unconstitutional tests on what is said in the classroom?

Lol...
While you attempt to cloud the issue with
constitutionality hubris, what you're really
trying to do is establish religious theory as
being equally as valid as scientific theory in
the context of the classroom.
What you're refusing to acknowledge, is
that there is no way to establish, within a
reasonable degree of certainty, the
existence of a divine Creator.
As a result, the theory of Creationism (IC
or not) is left outside of the realm of
science, remaining clearly in the realm of
religion/faith-- thus, in the classroom
context, its promotion is in clear violation
of the 1st Amendment's Establishment
clause...
A no-brainer.
We've been through all of this before. But I
see your still trying to beat this dead horse.
But then, According to a study by Prof. Drew
Weston of Emory University, only about 15%
of people rely on facts. The rest, his study
found, "believe whatever they want, facts be
dammed" as people tend to dismiss facts that
do not reinforce their beliefs.
Oh, well... at least you're in the majority... <g>
~S
----
Only fools believe that science embraces
unsupportable beliefs.
.

User: "cpt banjo"
Title: Re: MAJOR discrepencies have surfaced in USSC church-state separation opinions	03 Nov 2005 04:15:09 PM

fred wrote:

The mere act of regulating expression as to whether or not something is
scientifically valid is hindering free speech.

Incredible. So if a school board refuses to teach or discuss astrology
on the grounds that it's not scientifically valid, it's somehow
hindering the free speech rights of astrologers?
.

User: "Cary Kittrell"
Title: Re: MAJOR discrepencies have surfaced in USSC church-state separation opinions	03 Nov 2005 04:44:11 PM

In article <1131056109.921257.308750@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "cpt banjo" <cptbanjo@aol.com> writes:

fred wrote:

The mere act of regulating expression as to whether or not something is
scientifically valid is hindering free speech.

Incredible. So if a school board refuses to teach or discuss astrology
on the grounds that it's not scientifically valid, it's somehow
hindering the free speech rights of astrologers?

Fred appears to think that there is no necessity of limiting
the discussions in science classes to science.
-- cary
.

User: "Gray Shockley"
Title: Re: MAJOR discrepencies have surfaced in USSC church-state separation opinions	03 Nov 2005 11:53:12 PM

On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 16:15:09 -0600, cpt banjo wrote:

fred wrote:

The mere act of regulating expression as to whether or not something is
scientifically valid is hindering free speech.

Incredible. So if a school board refuses to teach or discuss astrology
on the grounds that it's not scientifically valid, it's somehow
hindering the free speech rights of astrologers?

And you haven't even started on one of the only true religion; that
of VooDoo.
Gray Shockley
----------------------
That hoo-doo that you do, so well.
.

User: "fred"
Title: Re: MAJOR discrepencies have surfaced in USSC church-state separation opinions	04 Nov 2005 01:04:46 AM

cpt banjo wrote:

fred wrote:

The mere act of regulating expression as to whether or not something is
scientifically valid is hindering free speech.

Incredible. So if a school board refuses to teach or discuss astrology
on the grounds that it's not scientifically valid, it's somehow
hindering the free speech rights of astrologers?

You're getting the wires crossed here. What does FREE mean to you?
To address your hypothetical question, yes, such refusal is hindering
the FREE speech rights of astrologers. But this does not mean that the
school board is wrong about its claims about astrology. You are
surprisingly overlooking that FREE speech gives people the right (it's
not an absolute right) to voice their opinions even if you disagree
with their opinions.
.

User: "cpt banjo"
Title: Re: MAJOR discrepencies have surfaced in USSC church-state separation opinions	04 Nov 2005 08:30:16 AM

And no one is denying astrologers, ID'ers, or any other nonscientific
group the right to voice their opinions. Again, where on earth do you
get the inane notion that your right to free speech includes the right
to have the government assist you in getting your message across?
As Hubert Humphrey, someone whom I rarely agreed with, once said, "The
right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken
seriously."
.

User: "Cary Kittrell"
Title: Re: MAJOR discrepencies have surfaced in USSC church-state separation opinions	04 Nov 2005 07:04:34 AM

In article <1131087886.826510.326710@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> writes:

cpt banjo wrote:

fred wrote:

The mere act of regulating expression as to whether or not something is
scientifically valid is hindering free speech.

Incredible. So if a school board refuses to teach or discuss astrology
on the grounds that it's not scientifically valid, it's somehow
hindering the free speech rights of astrologers?

But by your lights, teachers must still be required to discuss astrology
in, say, general science classes...because, after all, 30 or 40 percent
of Americans believe in it. It's their right to have it taught in
high school.
-- cary
.

User: ""
Title: Re: MAJOR discrepencies have surfaced in USSC church-state separation opinions	04 Nov 2005 02:40:08 PM

On 3 Nov 2005 23:04:46 -0800, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

To address your hypothetical question, yes, such refusal is hindering
the FREE speech rights of astrologers. But this does not mean that the
school board is wrong about its claims about astrology. You are
surprisingly overlooking that FREE speech gives people the right (it's
not an absolute right) to voice their opinions even if you disagree
with their opinions.

Apples and oranges
"Freedom of speech" of individuals
"Freedom of speech" of government institutions.
Government, except in specific situations, cannot abrogate the right
of individual speech.
Freedom of speech IS subject to regulation.
Some "speech" simply is not allowed.
If the constitution were "strictly" read, you'd have a "right" to yell
"fire" in a crowed theater.
But you don't
.

User: "Cary Kittrell"
Title: Re: MAJOR discrepencies have surfaced in USSC church-state separation opinions	04 Nov 2005 03:00:55 PM

In article <tjhnm1do32e9nfgtogg4u3desln68hv6mu@4ax.com>

writes:

On 3 Nov 2005 23:04:46 -0800, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

Apples and oranges

"Freedom of speech" of individuals

"Freedom of speech" of government institutions.

Government, except in specific situations, cannot abrogate the right
of individual speech.

Freedom of speech IS subject to regulation.

Some "speech" simply is not allowed.

If the constitution were "strictly" read, you'd have a "right" to yell
"fire" in a crowed theater.

But you don't

My girlfriend once looked around during a matinee, and realized that
there was no one there but us. She immediately started yelling --
well, you get the idea.
But then she's a damn furriner.
-- cary
.

User: "Server 13"
Title: Re: MAJOR discrepencies have surfaced in USSC church-state separationopinions	03 Nov 2005 03:35:11 PM

fred wrote:

Sid See wrote:

fred <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1130999224.635684.220000@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

It takes convoluted thinking to transpose
"religious freedom" into becoming an
antagonistic position against an absolute
church-state separation.

You ignore that absolute church-state separation is a relatively recent
myth created by anti-religious expression activist Justices on the
Supreme Court.

lie
This is evidenced in the Cantwell opinion which

reflects that absolute church-separation didn't exist in this country
until it was unlawfully created by legislating from the bench:

"The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the
legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such
laws." -- Cantwell v. The State of Connecticut 1940.

When do you quote the text that says what you said it says? This text
certainly does not. lol

No Church or establishment of religion in
America has a constitutional right to impose
their beliefs and laws onto the public-at-large.

I agree. However, although the Founding Fathers undoubtedly expected
the states to use their 10th Amendment protected power to legislate
religion to cultivate religious expression,

Cite?
some States abused their

powers by abridging personal federal rights. But the 14th Amendment
put a stop to this abuse of power. The 14th Amendment was made to
prohibit the States from using their 10th Amendment protected sovereign
powers to legislate religion to make laws that abridge the federal
rights of US citizens.

So even though activist Justices and the liberal press has misled the
American people into thinking otherwise, the 10th Amendment gives the
States the power to authorize public schools to lead classroom
discussions about the pros and cons of evolution, creationism and
irreducible complexity, for example. However, such classes should not
be mandatory because of people's 14th Amendment protections. Honest
Justices have stated that it is the Court's job to balance the 10
Amendment protected sovereign powers of the States with the 14th
Amendment guarantee of personal rights as indicated by the following
extract from the Jones v. City of Opelika opinion:

"Conflicts in the exercise of rights arise and the conflicting forces
seek adjustments in the courts, as do these parties, claiming on the
one side the freedom of religion, speech and the press, guaranteed by
the Fourteenth Amendment,11 and on the other the right to employ the
sovereign power explicitly reserved to the State by the Tenth Amendment
to ensure orderly living without which constitutional guarantees of
civil liberties would be a mockery." -- Jones v. City of Opelika 1942.

On the other hand, activist Justices who hate religious expression try
to sweep the 10th Amendment under the carpet. This is evidenced by the
Everson and Cantwell opinions which ignore the 10th Amendment.

Religious tyranny is not a right. To use the
guise of religious freedom to usurp other's
right for freedom FROM religious tyranny,
is indeed most dishonest and corrupt.

Cite?
The 14th Amendment put general limits

on the legislative powers of the States to stop such abuse.

But Madison's beliefs, just like the intentions of the Founding
Fathers, are not law.

The Christian Coalition is an EVIL, un-
American and un-Christian organization,
who's intent is Political power, not redemption.

As I've stated elsewhere, I believe that the Christian Right, along