Sociology > Education > ‘Separation of church and state’ appears in forefathers’ writing case, but it is nowhere in Constitution
| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
25 Mar 2006 06:12:44 AM |
| Object: |
‘Separation of church and state’ appears in forefathers’ writing case, but it is nowhere in Constitution |
http://www.cantonrep.com/index.php?ID=276166&Category=7
‘Separation of church and state’ appears in forefathers’ writing, court
case, but it is nowhere in Constitution
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
“ ... Under the U.S. Constitution, which also stipulates, clearly,
separation of church and state.” That is a quote from a letter to the
editor (“Blackwell’s ‘Christian’ platform disturbing,” Jan. 31). Now I
ain’t no brain surgeon, but I can read. And having the ability to read, I
have read the Constitution a time or two. Nowhere in it have I ever seen
the phrase “separation of church and state.”
That phrase appeared in a Supreme Court ruling (1947, Everson v. Board of
Education) and in the writings of some of our forefathers, which, in my
opinion, have been taken out of context, but never in the Constitution.
The First Amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress
of grievances.”
Some people need to read the First Amendment before they attempt to say
what it “stipulates, clearly.”
JAMES L. MOUNTS, PERRY TOWNSHIP
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "Joseph Welch" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Separation of church and state' appears in forefathers' writing case, but it is nowhere in Constitution |
26 Mar 2006 12:20:25 AM |
|
|
<buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:itca2258k5u90d903qs777faedkld13cl2@4ax.com...
http://www.cantonrep.com/index.php?ID=276166&Category=7
'Separation of church and state' appears in forefathers' writing, court
case, but it is nowhere in Constitution
Meaning what?
Do you believe that laws should be made based on particular religious
beliefs?
--
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Separation of church and state' appears in forefathers' writing case, but it is nowhere in Constitution |
26 Mar 2006 12:00:10 PM |
|
|
"Joseph Welch" <seattledemocracy@freewebspace.com> wrote:
:|
:|< > wrote in message
:|news:itca2258k5u90d903qs777faedkld13cl2@4ax.com...
:|> http://www.cantonrep.com/index.php?ID=276166&Category=7
:|>
:|> 'Separation of church and state' appears in forefathers' writing, court
:|> case, but it is nowhere in Constitution
:|
:|Meaning what?
:|
:|Do you believe that laws should be made based on particular religious
:|beliefs?
Read the article.
Both the article and a URL to the article was provided>
Or is that too complicated?
From:
Newsgroups:
alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.education,alt.atheism,alt.religion.christian,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: ‘Separation of church and state’ appears in forefathers’ writing
case, but it is nowhere in Constitution
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 07:12:44 -0500
http://www.cantonrep.com/index.php?ID=276166&Category=7
‘Separation of church and state’ appears in forefathers’ writing, court
case, but it is nowhere in Constitution
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
“ ... Under the U.S. Constitution, which also stipulates, clearly,
separation of church and state.” That is a quote from a letter to the
editor (“Blackwell’s ‘Christian’ platform disturbing,” Jan. 31). Now I
ain’t no brain surgeon, but I can read. And having the ability to read, I
have read the Constitution a time or two. Nowhere in it have I ever seen
the phrase “separation of church and state.”
That phrase appeared in a Supreme Court ruling (1947, Everson v. Board of
Education) and in the writings of some of our forefathers, which, in my
opinion, have been taken out of context, but never in the Constitution.
The First Amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress
of grievances.”
Some people need to read the First Amendment before they attempt to say
what it “stipulates, clearly.”
JAMES L. MOUNTS, PERRY TOWNSHIP
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Separation of church and state' appears in forefathers' writing case, but it is nowhere in Constitution |
26 Mar 2006 02:37:26 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 13:00:10 -0500,
buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
"Joseph Welch" <seattledemocracy@freewebspace.com> wrote:
:|
:|<buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message
:|news:itca2258k5u90d903qs777faedkld13cl2@4ax.com...
:|> http://www.cantonrep.com/index.php?ID=276166&Category=7
:|>
:|> 'Separation of church and state' appears in forefathers' writing, court
:|> case, but it is nowhere in Constitution
:|
:|Meaning what?
:|
:|Do you believe that laws should be made based on particular religious
:|beliefs?
Read the article.
Both the article and a URL to the article was provided>
Or is that too complicated?
What is "complicated", Buckeye, is not just answering
his question
Why is that?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Separation of church and state' appears in forefathers' writing case, but it is nowhere in Constitution |
28 Mar 2006 05:12:36 AM |
|
|
laffs@'em-all.com wrote:
:|On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 13:00:10 -0500,
:|buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
:|
:|>"Joseph Welch" <seattledemocracy@freewebspace.com> wrote:
:|>
:|>>:|
:|>>:|<buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message
:|>>:|news:itca2258k5u90d903qs777faedkld13cl2@4ax.com...
:|>>:|> http://www.cantonrep.com/index.php?ID=276166&Category=7
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|> 'Separation of church and state' appears in forefathers' writing, court
:|>>:|> case, but it is nowhere in Constitution
:|>>:|
:|>>:|Meaning what?
:|>>:|
:|>>:|Do you believe that laws should be made based on particular religious
:|>>:|beliefs?
:|>
:|>Read the article.
:|>
:|>Both the article and a URL to the article was provided>
:|>Or is that too complicated?
:|
:|What is "complicated", Buckeye, is not just answering
:|his question
:|
:|Why is that?
I answered one of his questions. I have no interest in his other question
so I didn't bother with it.
If that bothers you, too bad.
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ‘Separation of church and state’ appears in forefathers’ writing case, but it is nowhere in Constitution |
25 Mar 2006 12:39:22 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 07:12:44 -0500,
buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
http://www.cantonrep.com/index.php?ID=276166&Category=7
‘Separation of church and state’ appears in forefathers’ writing, court
case, but it is nowhere in Constitution
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
It doesn't have to be literally "in" the constitution
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ‘Separation of church and state’ appears in forefathers’ writing case, but it is nowhere in Constitution |
25 Mar 2006 01:18:48 PM |
|
|
laffs@'em-all.com wrote:
:|On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 07:12:44 -0500,
:|buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
:|
:|>http://www.cantonrep.com/index.php?ID=276166&Category=7
:|>
:|>‘Separation of church and state’ appears in forefathers’ writing, court
:|>case, but it is nowhere in Constitution
:|>Wednesday, March 22, 2006
:|
:|It doesn't have to be literally "in" the constitution
If you are actually addressing me let me ask you a question.
Do you honestly think that I could have been doing this for 12 years;
produced the following and not have known that?
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ‘Separation of church and state’ appears in forefathers’ writing case, but it is nowhere in Constitution |
25 Mar 2006 01:41:39 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 14:18:48 -0500,
buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
laffs@'em-all.com wrote:
:|On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 07:12:44 -0500,
:|buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
:|
:|>http://www.cantonrep.com/index.php?ID=276166&Category=7
:|>
:|>‘Separation of church and state’ appears in forefathers’ writing, court
:|>case, but it is nowhere in Constitution
:|>Wednesday, March 22, 2006
:|
:|It doesn't have to be literally "in" the constitution
If you are actually addressing me let me ask you a question.
Do you honestly think that I could have been doing this for 12 years;
produced the following and not have known that?
whatever:
I was addressing the Wed, Mar 22 cite you posted.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ‘Separation of church and state’ appears in forefathers’ writing case, but it is nowhere in Constitution |
26 Mar 2006 12:53:03 PM |
|
|
laffs@'em-all.com wrote:
:|On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 14:18:48 -0500,
:|buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
:|
:|>laffs@'em-all.com wrote:
:|>
:|>>:|On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 07:12:44 -0500,
:|>>:|buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
:|>>:|
:|>>:|>http://www.cantonrep.com/index.php?ID=276166&Category=7
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|>‘Separation of church and state’ appears in forefathers’ writing, court
:|>>:|>case, but it is nowhere in Constitution
:|>>:|>Wednesday, March 22, 2006
:|>>:|
:|>>:|It doesn't have to be literally "in" the constitution
:|>
:|>If you are actually addressing me let me ask you a question.
:|>
:|>Do you honestly think that I could have been doing this for 12 years;
:|>produced the following and not have known that?
:|
:|whatever:
:|
Whatever? Hummmm, interesting.
:| I was addressing the Wed, Mar 22 cite you posted.
That was written by a person other than me.
IIRC that was a comment sent to a newspaper. You could have followed the
URL and perhaps actually sent a reply to the author of the article.
Leaving my name at the top tended to indicate you were addressing me.
I suspect that few people actually bother to click on the URLs and read
the actual articles. Results I have observed over the past 5 months I have
been doing this indicates those posts that only have a URL and one
sentence seldom ever get any replies and those that have a longer excerpt
tend to get replies only to that excerpt and not the complete article.
Well, we have fred who only uses my posts as a spring board to continue to
act like a idiot and troll that he is
Kandoo or whatever he is calling himself these days uses some of my posts
to spread the Gospel, he thinks LOL
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: " torresD" |
|
| Title: Embarrassing and dangerous By Reuven Pedhatzur - HAARETZ |
26 Mar 2006 02:37:30 PM |
|
|
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/698442.html
Last update - 09:01 26/03/2006
Embarrassing and dangerous
By Reuven Pedhatzur
Last week a report entitled
"The Jewish Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy"
was published in the London Review of Books.
Two reputable professors,
one from Harvard, Stephen Walt,
and the other from University of
Chicago, John Mearsheimer,
wrote a shameful document
as far as its arguments go,
and an embarrassing one as
far as its academic level
is concerned.
The sole purpose of the article
is to prove the baseless claim
that the pro-Israel lobby leads
the American administration by
the nose and,
in effect,
dictates to presidents
their Middle East policies.
The result, they say,
is a policy that not only
doesn't match American
interests,
but indeed sabotages them.
The two write that
"the lobby's activities are
not a conspiracy of the sort
depicted in tracts like the
Protocols of the Elders of Zion,"
but disgracefully the paper they
produced is not far in spirit
from those "protocols."
They depict the pro-Israel
lobby as a multi-armed octopus,
with a hand in everything,
a nearly magical influence
over all elected American officials,
who are forced to bend to its will
for fear of harm.
Walt and Mearsheimer wonder why
American support for Israel is
so massive.
After all,
the conventional
explanations are invalid.
The argument that Israel
is a strategic asset for
the U.S. is baseless.
If it had any merit
during the Cold War,
then subsequently,
and especially after 9/11,
Israel is a strategic burden,
and is also the main
reason for international terror.
"The terrorist organizations
that threaten Israel do not
threaten the United States -
moreover,
Palestinian terrorism is not
random violence directed against
Israel or 'the West';
it is largely a response to
Israel's prolonged campaign
to colonize the West Bank
and the Gaza Strip."
The article says that the U.S.
has a terror problem largely
because it is such a close
ally of Israel.
And it is clear to the
authors of the article that
"there is no question that
many Al-Qaida leaders,
including Osama bin Laden,
are motivated by Israel's
presence in Jerusalem and
the plight of the Palestinians."
U.S. acceptance of
Israel's nuclear weaponry,
they say, harms the administration's
position in its campaign to prevent
nuclear proliferation.
The Israeli nuclear arsenal is
the reason its neighbors want
to develop nuclear weaponry.
And, in general, the U.S.
need not get too excited by
those countries acquiring
nuclear weaponry:
"Iran's nuclear ambitions do
not pose a direct threat to
the U.S. If Washington could
live with a nuclear Soviet Union,
a nuclear China or even a nuclear
North Korea,
it can live with a nuclear Iran,"
they write.
But Israel regards a
nuclear Iran as an
existential threat,
"and that is why the lobby must
keep up constant pressure on
politicians to confront Tehran.
Iran and the U.S. would hardly
be allies if the lobby did not exist,
but U.S policy would be more temperate
and preventive war would not be a serious option."
The danger, they say,
is that the lobby will lead
Bush into attacking Iran only
because it would contribute to
Israeli security.
That is an argument that ignores
the danger inherent in a nuclear Iran,
not only to Israel but also to the entire
world, starting with U.S. interests.
The authors completely distort
the view of the Bush administration,
which like its European colleagues,
has reached the conclusion that
the Iranian nuclear threat is
not only Israel's problem.
The rationale behind the American
need to support the only democracy
in the Middle East is weakened by
the fact that
"some aspects of Israeli
democracy are at odds with
core American values."
Israel discriminates against
its Arab citizens and by virtue
of its establishment was involved
in other crimes:
Israel exploited the war in 1948
to expel 700,000 Palestinians because,
they say,
there was no other way to
fulfill the goals of Zionism.
Since then,
it has been an unbridled
country that kills Arabs
mercilessly.
The two authors totally ignore the
fact that Palestinians rejected the
Partition Plan and that they started
the warring,
and they lend a hand to the
legitimization of the murderous
terror perpetrated by Hamas,
which they praise as a
legitimate political force,
persecuted by Israel.
As there is no reason for
American support for Israel,
the only explanation is the
pro-Israel lobby's unparalleled
power.
Therefore,
when the lobby decided that
toppling Saddam Hussein's
regime was necessary to
improve Israel's strategic
situation,
it led the Bush
administration to
war in Iraq.
"Some Americans believe
that this was a war for oil,
but there is hardly any direct
evidence to support this claim.
Instead,
the war was motivated
in good part by a desire
to make Israel more secure."
Naturally,
no serious proof for
this claim is made.
After it succeeded in the matter of Iraq,
the Israel lobby is now moving to get
the U.S. to attack Syria.
That pressure, say the two,
could lead to a war against
the Assad regime,
which would be against
American interests.
Here, too,
they ignore the negative role
Syria plays in encouraging terror
in Iraq against American soldiers,
not Israel.
It is difficult to know what
lies behind the writing of the
authors,
but there is no doubt that the
document's publication at this time,
when the American administration faces
decisions on the matter of a nuclear
Iran, is no accident.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: ‘Separation of church and state’ appears in forefathers’ writing case, but it is nowhere in Constitution |
25 Mar 2006 06:52:58 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 07:12:44 -0500, wrote:
“ ... Under the U.S. Constitution, which also stipulates, clearly,
separation of church and state.”
But no hindrance thereof.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Info Junkie" |
|
| Title: Re: ‘Separation of church and state’ appears in forefathers’ writing case, but it is nowhere in Constitution |
25 Mar 2006 08:44:11 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 06:52:58 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 07:12:44 -0500, wrote:
“ ... Under the U.S. Constitution, which also stipulates, clearly,
separation of church and state.”
But no hindrance thereof.
I wouldn't waste your time replying to him on this topic. It would appear
"buckeye" (AKA jalison) has yet another agenda beyond the simple church n' state
debate. It appears he's now "flooding" these Usenet forums under the guise of
posting "news" articles, but anyone that's seen him in these forums (at least in
alt.politics.usa.constitution) knows he's primarily promoting his website and is
trying to recruit members to a failing website he helps organize, i.e., a subtle
form of "spam".
"...every person must be his own watchman for truth..." -Justice Jackson
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ‘Separation of church and state’ appears in forefathers’ writing case, but it is nowhere in Constitution |
25 Mar 2006 12:40:05 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 14:44:11 GMT,
(Info Junkie) wrote:
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 06:52:58 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 07:12:44 -0500, wrote:
“ ... Under the U.S. Constitution, which also stipulates, clearly,
separation of church and state.”
But no hindrance thereof.
I wouldn't waste your time replying to him on this topic.
Him kicking your ***** day after day is bothering you, I
see.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Info Junkie" |
|
| Title: Re: ‘Separation of church and state’ appears in forefathers’ writing case, but it is nowhere in Constitution |
25 Mar 2006 05:04:48 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 11:40:05 -0700, laffs@'em-all.com wrote:
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 14:44:11 GMT,
(Info Junkie) wrote:
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 06:52:58 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 07:12:44 -0500, wrote:
“ ... Under the U.S. Constitution, which also stipulates, clearly,
separation of church and state.”
But no hindrance thereof.
I wouldn't waste your time replying to him on this topic.
Him kicking your ***** day after day is bothering you, I
see.
Mr jalison (AKA "buckeye") has never "bothered" me with his concerns over church
n' state issues. You see sonny unlike you, at least Mr jalison (AKA buckeye)
attempts to back his assertions with evidence. ROTFLMHO
"...every person must be his own watchman for truth..." -Justice Jackson
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ‘Separation of church and state’ appears in forefathers’ writing case, but it is nowhere in Constitution |
25 Mar 2006 07:24:27 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 23:04:48 GMT,
(Info Junkie) wrote:
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 11:40:05 -0700, laffs@'em-all.com wrote:
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 14:44:11 GMT,
(Info Junkie) wrote:
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 06:52:58 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 07:12:44 -0500, wrote:
“ ... Under the U.S. Constitution, which also stipulates, clearly,
separation of church and state.”
But no hindrance thereof.
I wouldn't waste your time replying to him on this topic.
Him kicking your ***** day after day is bothering you, I
see.
Mr jalison (AKA "buckeye") has never "bothered" me with his concerns over church
n' state issues.
IOW, you're too fucking dense to know when he's
whacking you?
Thanks for the info.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ‘Separation of church and state’ appears in forefathers’ writing case, but it is nowhere in Constitution |
25 Mar 2006 07:40:00 AM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
:|On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 07:12:44 -0500, wrote:
:|
:|>“ ... Under the U.S. Constitution, which also stipulates, clearly,
:|>separation of church and state.”
:|
:|But no hindrance thereof.
Your reply doesn't make sense, you want to try again?
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
