"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
:|Patrick Vallely wrote:
:|> > fred wrote:
:|> >
:|> >>>> For example, regardless that the states have been misled by the Supreme
:|> >>>> Court into thinking that public schools cannot lead classroom
:|> >>>> discussions concerning religious issues, even Jefferson indicated that
:|> >>>> religion can be taught in schools.
:|> >>>
:|> >>>
:|> >>> The Supreme Court has never said that public schools cannot lead
:|> >>> classroom discussions concerning religious issues. If states have
:|> >>
:|> >>
:|> >> Please name a case where the Supreme Court has examined the issue.
:|> >
:|>
:|> The Supreme Court said in Schempp:
:|>
:|> It is insisted that unless these religious exercises are permitted a
:|> "religion of secularism" is established in the schools. We agree of
:|> course that the State may not establish a "religion of secularism" in
:|> the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion,
:|> thus "preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do
:|> believe." Zorach v. Clauson, supra, at 314. We do not agree, however,
:|> that this decision in any sense has that effect. In addition, it might
:|> well be said that one's education is not complete without a study of
:|> comparative religion or the history of religion and its relationship to
:|> the advancement of civilization. It certainly may be said that the Bible
:|> is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities. *Nothing we
:|> have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion,
:|> when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education,
:|> may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment.*
:|
:|You are sidestepping the issue.
:|
:|The Schempp opinion did not say that students who go to school cannot
:|pray or discuss religious issues with other students even if they do so
:|independently of school authorities.
Would you like to ask Ellery Schempp what the case he brgan and bears his
name was about
You will find him a member here and he posts here as well:
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
Also. I will add this
Religion In The Public Schools: A Joint Statement Of Current Law
http://www.ed.gov/Speeches/04-1995/prayer.html
and this
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:Tn3EA6RX4ocJ:papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm%3Fabstract_id%3D267786+author:%22JEFFRIES+JR%22+intitle:%22A+Political+History+of+the+Establishment+Clause%22
: http://makeashorterlink.com/?J231141EB
We do not, however, see a similar fate for secularism in public education.
In contrast to the political revolution on school aid, no new coalition has
formed to overturn the Court's decisions outlawing school prayer and Bible
reading. Religious exercises in public schools are endorsed today, as they
were forty years ago, by the Catholic leadership and by conservative
evangelicals and fundamentalists. They are opposed today, as they were
forty years ago, by public secularists, mainline Protestant clergy, and
most Jews. Moreover, the increasing religious pluralism of American society
reinforces the secularist position. While the growing religious diversity
of private schools makes government funding of them more "neutral" and
hence more acceptable, the growing religious diversity of students in
public schools makes it more and more difficult to envision any religious
exercises that would not favor some faiths and offend others. We therefore
predict that the constitutional prohibition against prayer in the public
schools to remain more or less intact.
***********************************************************************
:| The problem is that the Schempp
:|opinion unlawfully nullified the 10th Amendment, which it failed to
:|even mention, by ordering the states not to use their power to address
:|religion to authorize public schools to officially initiate such
:|activities. The Supreme Court seems to avoid mentioning the 10th
:|Amendment with respect to church/state separation issues probably
:|because the 10th Amendment is a dangerous lose canon when you are
:|trying to defend the political correctness of unconstitutional absolute
:|church and state separation.
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
:|> > First of all, Newdow and the confused Courts are wrong that the States
:|> > don't have the power to lead students in reciting the "religious"
:|> > Pledge because the 10th Amendment gives the States the power to address
:|> > religious issues. See the following essay [ by the Radical Religious Right
:|> >Theocratic propagandistic Alan Keyes ] concerning the
:|> > constitutional delegation of religous powers
:|> >
:|> > http://www.renewamerica.us/readings/keyes_essay.htm
:|
:|You completely ignored the 10th Amendment:
:|
:|"Article 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the
:|Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
:|States respectively, or to the people."
:|
Aug 22, 5:56 am show options
Newsgroups: alt.politics.democrats.d, alt.politics.usa.constitution,
alt.politics.liberalism, alt.society.liberalism, alt.education,
alt.atheism, alt.religion.christianity, misc.education
From:
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 05:56:56 -0400
Local: Mon, Aug 22 2005 5:56 am
Subject: Re: FREEDOM OF RELIGION
"fred" <clar...@gmail.com> wrote:
:| The essay referenced below shows the
:|relationship between the 1st and 10th Amendments and religion:
:|
:|http://www.renewamerica.us/readings/keyes_essay.htm
:|
I wonder if fred has noticed that I made his plugging for Keyes more honest
and accurate for the past week or more each time I found his plugging
mantra?
"fred" <clar...@gmail.com> wrote:
:|Separationists and tyrant judges don't want people to know that the
:|10th Amendment actually reserved the power to address religion for the
:|states since the 1st Amendment explicitly prohibited this power to the
:|federal government.
:| The [ Radical Religious Right Theocratic propagandistic ]
:|essay referenced by the link below explains
:|the 1st and 10th Amendments with respect to religion:
:|http://www.renewamerica.us/readings/keyes_essay.htm
**********************************************************************
Meet another theocrat
Meet Alan L. Keyes
Home site
http://www.renewamerica.us/archives/index.htm
Religious Liberty as defined by him
http://www.renewamerica.us/archives/religious_liberty.htm
Alan Keyes / Alan Dershowitz
Does Organized Religion Hold Answers to the Problems of the 21st Century?
Debate, September 27, 2000
http://www.renewamerica.us/archives/speeches/00_09_27debate.htm
Alan Keyes
On the establishment of religion: What the Constitution really says
August 26, 2003
http://www.renewamerica.us/archives/columns/03_08_26wnd.htm
Positions on Particular Issues
http://www.ourfounder.com/haque/keyes.htm
* Abortion & Euthanasia
* Affirmative Action
* Homosexual Rights
* Religion / School Prayer
* School Choice
* Second Amendment Rights
* Sex Education
* Taxes & Government Spending
* United Nations
* Welfare / Family Disintegration
*******************************************************************
wrote in message
The Tenth Amendment was altered so that it really isn't as clear as many
people seem to think
(1) THE TENTH AMENDMENT
(2) THE BILL OF RIGHTS & THE TENTH AMENDMENT,
(3) THERE HAVE BEEN ATTEMPTS TO UNDERMINE WHAT THE FOUNDERS PASSED BY
ADDING THE WORD EXPRESSLY TO THE TENTH AMENDMENT: THE BATTLE OVER THE TENTH
AMENDMENT: OPENING A SECOND FRONT
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christianity/msg/45713c229fe82b90?hl=en&
Your shorter link is: http://makeashorterlink.com/?U11651FDB
************************************************************
PART V
ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE:, EVERSON & FOOTNOTES TO EVERSON
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.education/msg/a554494414aff8a5?hl=en&lr=
Your shorter link is: http://makeashorterlink.com/?W13632FDB
*************************************************************
I said it was modified, not revoked. The 1st reads, "Congress shall
make no law ...". The 14th reads "No State shall make ... any law ..."
The 14th modifies the 1st to effectively read, "Congress and the
States shall make no law ..."
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 16:55:12 -0500
From: Josh Rosenbluth to fred
*****************************************************
Fourteenth Amendment, Selective Incorporation
http://candst.tripod.com/14thamend.htm
***************************************************************
[ Snipped the rest your or usual radical religious right theocratic
propaganda ]
***************************************************************
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
****************************************************************
.
|
