| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"fred" |
| Date: |
16 Aug 2005 01:42:57 PM |
| Object: |
The real problem is the term GOVERNMENT |
The problem isn't with the term "church and state".
The real problem is the term GOVERNMENT.
People don't understand that the Founding Fathers recognized the
federal and state governments and religious authorities as three
distinct authorities. While everybody correctly understands that the
federal government was prohibited any power to address religion, people
don't understand that the power to address religion was indeed
delegated to the states. The essay referenced below explains the 1st
and 10th Amendments with respect to religion:
http://www.renewamerica.us/readings/keyes_essay.htm
The only reason that we think the way we do today about "absolute"
church and state separation is because of unconstitutional
separationist political correctness.
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The real problem is the term GOVERNMENT |
17 Aug 2005 07:58:14 AM |
|
|
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
:| . . . The [ Radical Religious Right Theocratic propagandistic ]
:|essay referenced below explains the 1st
:|and 10th Amendments with respect to religion:
:|
:|http://www.renewamerica.us/readings/keyes_essay.htm
Another view:
Are you aware that the states came within one vote of being abolished
altogether during the Constitutional Convention?
I suspect nether you or Keyes knows that.
Are you aware the AOC (Articles of Confederation) were abandoned becasie of
the abuses of the states?
I suspect nether you or Keyes knows that
Have you ever really read this?
Congressional Debates: Religious Amendments, 1789
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/1stdebat.htm
[excerpts]
August 17, 1789-- First Federal Congress (Amendments-religious reference)
[House of Representatives]
The House again resolved itself into a committee, Mr. Boudinot in the
chair, on the proposed amendments to the constitution. The third clause of
the fourth proposition in the report was taken into consideration, being as
follows:
religious reference)
The committee then proceeded to the fifth proposition:
Article I, Section 10 between the first and second paragraph, insert 'No
state shall infringe the equal rights of conscience, nor the freedom of
speech or of the press, nor of the right of trial by jury in criminal
cases.'
Mr. TUCKER this is offered, I presume, as an amendment to the constitution
of the United States, but it goes only to the alteration of constitutions
of particular states. It will be much better, I apprehend, to leave the
state governments to themselves, and not to interfere with them more than
we already do; and that is thought by many to be rather too much. I
therefore move, Sir, to strike out these words.
Mr. MADISON conceives this to be the most valuable amendment in the whole
list. If there were any reason to restrain the government of the United
States from infringing upon these essential rights, it was equally
necessary that they should be secured against the state governments. He
thought that if they provided against one, it was as necessary to provide
against the other, and it was satisfied that it would be equally grateful
to the people.
*************************************************************************************
Dangers and Comments
"We the People;" Factions, Including Religious Sects, & Denominations;
Local & State Governments; Majority v. Minority; Common Law and Other
Things of Importance
Selections from James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson,
Congressional Debates and other sources.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/dangers.htm
**********************************************************************************
* Fourteenth Amendment
http://candst.tripod.com/14thamend.htm
FINALLY
"State courts, less insulated from the majoritatian politics, are less
willing or able to make unpopular decisions."
Towards A Usable Past" LIBERTY Under State Constitutions. Ed. by Paul
Finkelman & Stephen E. Gottlieb. The University of Georgia Press, (1991)
p 325
************************************************************************************
:|The only reason that we think the way we do today about "absolute"
:|church and state separation is because of unconstitutional
:|separationist political correctness.
This says you are incorrect again:
April 14, 1800
The Gazette
Philadelphia
Monday Evening, April 14.
The condition of Church and State in America is such as to fill every
considerate mind with the most unhappy sensations. In spite of that vanity
and fastidiousness which led the Federal Convention, in founding their
government, to preclude any connection, it will appear in the end, even by
our own deplorable example, that a strict and indissoluble alliance of
religion to government has been ordained in the nature of things. Though
formally sundered by Constitution and laws; together they decline and
together (it would seem) they are likely to perish.
Source of Information The Gazette of the United States, April 14, 1800.Jan
1, 1800 TO Dec.31, 1800 MFILM N.S. 10953 AP2.05
**************************************************************************************
January 1833
"The remaining part of the clause declares, that 'no religious test
shall ever be required, as a qualification to any office or public trust,
under the United States.' This clause is not introduced merely for the
purpose of satisfying the scruples of many respectable persons, who feel an
invincible repugnance to any test or affirmation. It had a higher object;
to cut off for ever every pretence of any alliance between church and state
in the national government. The framers of the constitution were fully
sensible of the dangers from this source, marked out in history of other
ages and countries; and not wholly unknown to our own. They knew, that
bigotry was unceasingly vigilant in its own stratagems, to secure to itself
an exclusive ascendancy over the human mind; and that intolerance was ever
ready to arm itself with all the terrors of civil power to exterminate
those, who doubted its dogmas, or resisted its infallibility."
Commentaries on The Constitution of The United States, by Supreme Court
Justice Joseph Story, Vol III, (1833) pg 705.
****************************************************************
James Madison on Separation of Church and State
Direct references to separation to be found in the writings of James
Madison
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qmadison.htm
----------------------------------------
OCTOBER 1, 1803
Notes for annual message, Oct. 17, 1803: alterations and additions, etc [1]
(3) after "assure"-are proposed "in due season, and under prudent
arrangements, important aids to our Treasury, as well as," an ample etc.
Quere: if the two or three succeeding paragraphs be not more
adapted to the separate and subsequent communication, if adopted as above
suggested.
(4) For the first sentence, may be substituted "In the territory between
the Mississippi and the Ohio another valuable acquisition has been made by
a treaty etc."[3.] As it stands, it does not sufficiently distinguish the
nature of the one acquisition from that of the other, and seems to imply
that the acquisition from France was wholly on the other side of the
Mississippi
May it not be as well to omit the detail of the stipulated
considerations, and particularly that of the Roman Catholic Pastor. The
jealousy of some may see in it a principle, not according with the
exemption of Religion from Civil power. In the Indian Treaty it will be
less noticed than in a President's speech.[4.]
FOOTNOTES:
[1.] For TJ's third annual message to Congress, Oct. 17, 1803, see Ford,
VIII, pp. 266-7)
[3.] TI's message announced the acquisition of territory by treaty from the
Kaskaskia Indians; see
Ford, VIII, pp. 269-70.
[4.] TJ accepted JM's suggestion to omit any discussion of Indian treaty
requirements to maintain a Roman Catholic priest, leaving the stipulations
in the treaty to "the competence of both
houses.... as soon as the senate shall have advised its ratification"; see
ibid.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, Washington, Oct.
1, 1803, Notes for annual message, Oct. 17, 1803: alterations and
additions, etc.[1.],
The Republic of Letters, the Correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and
James Madison, 1776-1826, Edited by James Morton Smith, Vol. II, 1790
-1804, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, London, (1995) pp 1297-98)
---------------------------------------------------
JUNE 3, 1811
"To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I
have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the
Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem
Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical
distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the
purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States,
I could not have other wise discharged my duty on the
occasion which presented itself"
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June
3, 1811. Letters And Other Writings of James Madison Fourth President Of
The United States In Four Volumes Published By the Order Of Congress,
Vol..II, J. B. Lippincott & Co., Philadelphia, (1865) pp 511-512)
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARCH 2, 1819
"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated
hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions
with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of
the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly
increased by the total separation of the church from the State."
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excert of a letter to Robert Walsh from James
Madison. MARCH 2, 1819 Letters and Other writings of James Madison, in
Four Volumes, Published by Order of Congress. VOL. III, J. B. Lippincott &
Co. Philadelphia, (1865), pp 121-126. James Madison on Religious Liberty,
Robert S.Alley, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N.Y. (1985) pp 82-83)
----------------------------------------------------------
1817-1833
"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and Gov't in the
Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by
Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents' already furnished
in their short history"
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excerpt from Madison's Detached Memoranda. This
document was discovered in 1946 among the papers of William Cabell Rives, a
biographer of Madison. Scholars date these observations in Madison's hand
sometime between 1817 and 1832. The entire document was published by
Elizabeth Fleet in the William and Mary Quarterly of October 1946.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
JULY 10, 1822
"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation
between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have
no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done,
in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity
the less they are mixed together"
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excerpt of letter to Edward Livingston from James
Madison, July 10, 1822. Letters and Other writings of James Madison, in
Four Volumes, Published by Order of Congress. VOL. III, J. B. Lippincott &
Co. Philadelphia, (1865), pp 273-276. James Madison on Religious Liberty,
Robert S.Alley, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N.Y. (1985) pp 82-83)
--------------------------------------------------------------
SEPTEMBER 1833
"I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to
trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil
authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on
unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other
or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded
against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way
whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting
each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others".
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Letter written by James Madison to Rev. Jasper
Adams, September, 1833.Writings of James Madison, edited by Gaillard Hunt,
[not sure what the volume number is but have enough information presented
here to locate the letter] microform Z1236.L53, pp 484-488. )
*********************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.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 SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
For people in Hampton Roads area of Virginia you are also invited to join
NORFOLK/VA. B. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE MEETUP GROUP
http://churchandstate.meetup.com/47/
Virginia Chapter Americans United for Separation of Church and State
http://au-va.org/
***************************************************************
.. . . 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
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
This site is a member of the following web rings:
Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
American History WebRing--&--The History Ring
Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring
Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mean 1" |
|
| Title: Re: The real problem is the term GOVERNMENT |
16 Aug 2005 04:05:07 PM |
|
|
On 16 Aug 2005 11:42:57 -0700, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
The only reason that we think the way we do today about "absolute"
church and state separation is because of unconstitutional
separationist political correctness.
So if Muslims get a State to recognize their religion as the one true
religion and outlaw Christianity then that is cool with you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fire of Zion" |
|
| Title: Re: The real problem is the term GOVERNMENT |
17 Aug 2005 06:46:53 PM |
|
|
Mean 1 wrote:
On 16 Aug 2005 11:42:57 -0700, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
The only reason that we think the way we do today about "absolute"
church and state separation is because of unconstitutional
separationist political correctness.
So if Muslims get a State to recognize their religion as the one true
religion and outlaw Christianity then that is cool with you?
Cool to the ACLU, the Neo-Sods, wiggers, and miscegenated liberals.
Jd
But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, "Why tempt ye me, ye
hypocrites?" (Matthew 22:18)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The real problem is the term GOVERNMENT |
17 Aug 2005 08:37:07 PM |
|
|
Fire of Zion wrote:
Cool to the ACLU, the Neo-Sods, wiggers, and miscegenated liberals.
Miscegenated? Have a problem with Mariah
Carey or something?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fire of Zion" |
|
| Title: Re: The real problem is the term GOVERNMENT |
17 Aug 2005 10:23:05 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Fire of Zion wrote:
Cool to the ACLU, the Neo-Sods, wiggers, and miscegenated liberals.
Miscegenated? Have a problem with Mariah
Carey or something?
Do you wear a trenchcoat?
Jd
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The real problem is the term GOVERNMENT |
22 Aug 2005 09:04:28 AM |
|
|
Fire of Zion wrote:
Cool to the ACLU, the Neo-Sods, wiggers, and miscegenated liberals.
Miscegenated? Have a problem with Mariah
Carey or something?
Do you wear a trenchcoat?
Not usually, but I'm 6'5" so you wish you
looked as good in one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fire of Zion" |
|
| Title: Re: The real problem is the term GOVERNMENT |
22 Aug 2005 03:26:03 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Fire of Zion wrote:
Cool to the ACLU, the Neo-Sods, wiggers, and miscegenated liberals.
Miscegenated? Have a problem with Mariah
Carey or something?
Do you wear a trenchcoat?
Not usually, but I'm 6'5" so you wish you
looked as good in one.
Bull. Guys like you are usually playing out fantasies in anonymity.
You are probably more like 5'6", bald, and wear thick corrective
lenses.
Jd
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The real problem is the term GOVERNMENT |
23 Aug 2005 12:26:54 PM |
|
|
Fire of Zion wrote:
Bull. Guys like you are usually playing out fantasies in anonymity.
You are probably more like 5'6", bald, and wear thick corrective
lenses.
Except I'm Lakota so I don't have the baldness gene.
I need glasses for reading up close, but that's it.
Idjit.
Also, I sometimes wish I was a bit shorter. Do you
know how hard it is to find clothes in my
proportions?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fire of Zion" |
|
| Title: Re: The real problem is the term GOVERNMENT |
26 Aug 2005 05:48:39 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Fire of Zion wrote:
Bull. Guys like you are usually playing out fantasies in anonymity.
You are probably more like 5'6", bald, and wear thick corrective
lenses.
Except I'm Lakota so I don't have the baldness gene.
I need glasses for reading up close, but that's it.
Idjit.
Umm. excuse me bubba but the spelling is "idjut".
Also, I sometimes wish I was a bit shorter. Do you
know how hard it is to find clothes in my
proportions?
For Midgits In Blue? I can only imagine.
Jd
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The real problem is the term GOVERNMENT |
23 Aug 2005 12:28:23 PM |
|
|
Fire of Zion wrote:
Bull. Guys like you are usually playing out fantasies in anonymity.
You are probably more like 5'6", bald, and wear thick corrective
lenses.
Except I'm Lakota so I don't have the baldness gene.
I need glasses for reading up close, but that's it.
Idjit.
Also, I sometimes wish I was a bit shorter. Do you
know how hard it is to find clothes in my
proportions?
Oh, yeah, and I made a typo: I meant 6'7".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fire of Zion" |
|
| Title: Re: The real problem is the term GOVERNMENT |
26 Aug 2005 05:48:40 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Fire of Zion wrote:
Bull. Guys like you are usually playing out fantasies in anonymity.
You are probably more like 5'6", bald, and wear thick corrective
lenses.
Except I'm Lakota so I don't have the baldness gene.
I need glasses for reading up close, but that's it.
Idjit.
Also, I sometimes wish I was a bit shorter. Do you
know how hard it is to find clothes in my
proportions?
Oh, yeah, and I made a typo: I meant 6'7".
Now I'm sure you're a midget. Only a midget with an inferiority
complex could forget that he was 6'7" and not 6'5".
And I'm reasonably sure that you dress in EltonJohn blueish type garb
instead of a black trenchcoat like you would like us all to think.
So I'm calling you Midget in Blue from now on. And from now on, when
you come in here to read my replies, think of it as free therapy.
It's amazes me that America is 86% Christian and I have to do all this
missionary work here with such little support.
I'm almost as upset with my fellow Christians (many of whom have
become fat and lazy from going on too many cruise ships and spending
too much time in Los Vegas and eating at Shoney's every Sunday after
Church) as I am with pagans like you who have multiple personality
disorders.
I'm afraid many have fallen under the curse as it is written:
Thus saith the Lord; "Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and
maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord".
(Jeremiah 17:5)
Jd
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The real problem is the term GOVERNMENT |
27 Aug 2005 03:47:48 PM |
|
|
Fire of Zion wrote:
Now I'm sure you're a midget. Only a midget with an inferiority
complex could forget that he was 6'7" and not 6'5".
Ever heard of a typo? Flame of Moron. It's rather
simple to make. Especially with numbers because I
can't put them through spell check.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: The real problem is the term GOVERNMENT |
26 Aug 2005 06:26:45 PM |
|
|
In article <3bavg19b1amue0ju8m37i28qpcap3sud85@4ax.com> Fire of Zion <ZionsFire@att.net> writes:
man_in_black529@yahoo.com wrote:
Fire of Zion wrote:
Bull. Guys like you are usually playing out fantasies in anonymity.
You are probably more like 5'6", bald, and wear thick corrective
lenses.
Except I'm Lakota so I don't have the baldness gene.
I need glasses for reading up close, but that's it.
Idjit.
Also, I sometimes wish I was a bit shorter. Do you
know how hard it is to find clothes in my
proportions?
Oh, yeah, and I made a typo: I meant 6'7".
Now I'm sure you're a midget. Only a midget with an inferiority
complex could forget that he was 6'7" and not 6'5".
And I'm reasonably sure that you dress in EltonJohn blueish type garb
instead of a black trenchcoat like you would like us all to think.
So I'm calling you Midget in Blue from now on. And from now on, when
you come in here to read my replies, think of it as free therapy.
It's amazes me that America is 86% Christian and I have to do all this
missionary work here with such little support.
Now why in the world could that be?
Think about it.
No, really. Think about it.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fire of Zion" |
|
| Title: Re: The real problem is the term GOVERNMENT |
26 Aug 2005 07:20:54 PM |
|
|
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <3bavg19b1amue0ju8m37i28qpcap3sud85@4ax.com> Fire of Zion <ZionsFire@att.net> writes:
man_in_black529@yahoo.com wrote:
Fire of Zion wrote:
Bull. Guys like you are usually playing out fantasies in anonymity.
You are probably more like 5'6", bald, and wear thick corrective
lenses.
Except I'm Lakota so I don't have the baldness gene.
I need glasses for reading up close, but that's it.
Idjit.
Also, I sometimes wish I was a bit shorter. Do you
know how hard it is to find clothes in my
proportions?
Oh, yeah, and I made a typo: I meant 6'7".
Now I'm sure you're a midget. Only a midget with an inferiority
complex could forget that he was 6'7" and not 6'5".
And I'm reasonably sure that you dress in EltonJohn blueish type garb
instead of a black trenchcoat like you would like us all to think.
So I'm calling you Midget in Blue from now on. And from now on, when
you come in here to read my replies, think of it as free therapy.
It's amazes me that America is 86% Christian and I have to do all this
missionary work here with such little support.
Now why in the world could that be?
Think about it.
No, really. Think about it.
-- cary
First, let's see what the mighty Midget in Blue (MIB) suede shoes has
to say.
Jd
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: The real problem is the term GOVERNMENT |
18 Aug 2005 10:59:17 AM |
|
|
In article <1178g1hq8p7nur25mr1rmi0d3k62kfo9pi@4ax.com> Fire of Zion <ZionsFire@att.net> writes:
man_in_black529@yahoo.com wrote:
Fire of Zion wrote:
Cool to the ACLU, the Neo-Sods, wiggers, and miscegenated liberals.
Miscegenated? Have a problem with Mariah
Carey or something?
Do you wear a trenchcoat?
Me? Sometimes. Other times I'm more in the mood for ostrich
feathers. Of course I never NEVER wear those when I'm
doing the sparklers-and-roller-skates thing, they're
FAR too flammable.
Inflammable too.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fire of Zion" |
|
| Title: Re: The real problem is the term GOVERNMENT |
21 Aug 2005 07:55:09 PM |
|
|
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1178g1hq8p7nur25mr1rmi0d3k62kfo9pi@4ax.com> Fire of Zion <ZionsFire@att.net> writes:
man_in_black529@yahoo.com wrote:
Fire of Zion wrote:
Cool to the ACLU, the Neo-Sods, wiggers, and miscegenated liberals.
Miscegenated? Have a problem with Mariah
Carey or something?
Do you wear a trenchcoat?
Me? Sometimes. Other times I'm more in the mood for ostrich
feathers. Of course I never NEVER wear those when I'm
doing the sparklers-and-roller-skates thing, they're
FAR too flammable.
Inflammable too.
-- cary
Figured you'd turn Elton after forsaking God.
Jd
Romans 1:28 "And even as they did not like to retain God in their
knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things
which are not convenient"
(And the things you do are highly inconvenient).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: The real problem is the term GOVERNMENT |
22 Aug 2005 10:20:53 AM |
|
|
In article <i5eig1prfvs4tt4i861rlerr1hj2knbf92@4ax.com> Fire of Zion <ZionsFire@att.net> writes:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1178g1hq8p7nur25mr1rmi0d3k62kfo9pi@4ax.com> Fire of Zion <ZionsFire@att.net> writes:
man_in_black529@yahoo.com wrote:
Fire of Zion wrote:
Cool to the ACLU, the Neo-Sods, wiggers, and miscegenated liberals.
Miscegenated? Have a problem with Mariah
Carey or something?
Do you wear a trenchcoat?
Me? Sometimes. Other times I'm more in the mood for ostrich
feathers. Of course I never NEVER wear those when I'm
doing the sparklers-and-roller-skates thing, they're
FAR too flammable.
Inflammable too.
-- cary
Figured you'd turn Elton after forsaking God.
What? That's just insulting.
I'd NEVER wear sunglasses like that.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: The real problem is the term GOVERNMENT |
17 Aug 2005 08:40:11 PM |
|
|
In article <1124329027.346280.30630@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> writes:
Fire of Zion wrote:
Cool to the ACLU, the Neo-Sods, wiggers, and miscegenated liberals.
Miscegenated? Have a problem with Mariah
Carey or something?
As a repeat miscegenator, let me say that it's vastly
underrated.
(how does one eucegenate?)
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fire of Zion" |
|
| Title: Re: The real problem is the term GOVERNMENT |
17 Aug 2005 10:24:31 PM |
|
|
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1124329027.346280.30630@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> writes:
Fire of Zion wrote:
Cool to the ACLU, the Neo-Sods, wiggers, and miscegenated liberals.
Miscegenated? Have a problem with Mariah
Carey or something?
As a repeat miscegenator, let me say that it's vastly
underrated.
(how does one eucegenate?)
-- cary
Like a miscegetraitor.
Jd
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: The real problem is the term GOVERNMENT |
18 Aug 2005 01:59:14 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 20:40:11 -0500, Cary Kittrell wrote
(in article <de0otr$m26$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu>):
In article <1124329027.346280.30630@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
man_in_black529@yahoo.com writes:
Fire of Zion wrote:
Cool to the ACLU, the Neo-Sods, wiggers, and miscegenated liberals.
Miscegenated? Have a problem with Mariah
Carey or something?
As a repeat miscegenator, let me say that it's vastly
underrated.
(how does one eucegenate?)
-- cary
Carefully. Very, very carefully.
++ gray
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: The real problem is the term GOVERNMENT |
16 Aug 2005 05:13:31 PM |
|
|
Mean 1 wrote:
On 16 Aug 2005 11:42:57 -0700, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
The only reason that we think the way we do today about "absolute"
church and state separation is because of unconstitutional
separationist political correctness.
So if Muslims get a State to recognize their religion as the one true
religion and outlaw Christianity then that is cool with you?
Welcome back from vacation!
You evidently missed some posts while you were gone. You missed posts
which explain that section 1 of the 14th Amendment prevents bully
pulpit preachers from pirating the powers of the the states to force
their religious beliefs down people's throats:
"Article 14, section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United
States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make
or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person
of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to
any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The key wording in section 1 which prohibits the states from using
their power to abridge personal federal rights is:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; ..."
So no, Muslims cannot outlaw Christianity in any state and vice-versa.
Everybody is protected by 1st Amendment freedom of religious
expression.
Finally, note that the establishment clause was not intended to mean
absolute separation of church and state like many zealous
separationists would have everybody believe. After all, basic reading
skills tell us that the establishment clause simply helps to clarify
the types of laws that Congress is prohibited from writing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The real problem is the term GOVERNMENT |
16 Aug 2005 05:57:16 PM |
|
|
On 16 Aug 2005 15:13:31 -0700, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Mean 1 wrote:
On 16 Aug 2005 11:42:57 -0700, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
The only reason that we think the way we do today about "absolute"
church and state separation is because of unconstitutional
separationist political correctness.
So if Muslims get a State to recognize their religion as the one true
religion and outlaw Christianity then that is cool with you?
Welcome back from vacation!
You evidently missed some posts while you were gone. You missed posts
which explain that section 1 of the 14th Amendment prevents bully
pulpit preachers from pirating the powers of the the states to force
their religious beliefs down people's throats:
Bu llshit, Freddie
That's a pissant self "interpretation"
The key wording in section 1 which prohibits the states from using
their power to abridge personal federal rights is:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; ..."
So no, Muslims cannot outlaw Christianity in any state and vice-versa.
Everybody is protected by 1st Amendment freedom of religious
expression.
***** again
If "government", particularily a state government uses an exclusionary
religious dogma as predicate for their laws, that is "endorsing" or
giving legitimacy to religion--and by inference is "outlawing" other
religions.
Government is prohibited from bringing religion across that "wall"
Finally, note that the establishment clause was not intended to mean
absolute separation of church and state like many zealous
separationists would have everybody believe.
What law says so?
You keep spamming the same tired old founders "Writings", or "what the
founders thought", but never addressing the reality that the USSC is
the ONLY legitimate entity to make that determination
You're arguing the the USSC making rulings that don't coincide with
YOUR loony "interpretations" are unconstitutional
That's loonyville from the word "go" ! !
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: The real problem is the term GOVERNMENT |
16 Aug 2005 07:03:14 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On 16 Aug 2005 15:13:31 -0700, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Mean 1 wrote:
On 16 Aug 2005 11:42:57 -0700, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
The only reason that we think the way we do today about "absolute"
church and state separation is because of unconstitutional
separationist political correctness.
So if Muslims get a State to recognize their religion as the one true
religion and outlaw Christianity then that is cool with you?
Welcome back from vacation!
You evidently missed some posts while you were gone. You missed posts
which explain that section 1 of the 14th Amendment prevents bully
pulpit preachers from pirating the powers of the the states to force
their religious beliefs down people's throats:
Bu llshit, Freddie
That's a pissant self "interpretation"
The key wording in section 1 which prohibits the states from using
their power to abridge personal federal rights is:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; ..."
So no, Muslims cannot outlaw Christianity in any state and vice-versa.
Everybody is protected by 1st Amendment freedom of religious
expression.
***** again
If "government", particularily a state government uses an exclusionary
religious dogma as predicate for their laws, that is "endorsing" or
giving legitimacy to religion--and by inference is "outlawing" other
religions.
You're refusing to make the distinction between federal and states
governments that the Founding Fathers had intended. As I have
indicated many times before, Jefferson reflected this distinction in
his writings:
"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
Government is prohibited from bringing religion across that "wall"
You are refusing to admit that the federal government is on one side of
that "wall" and that the state governments are on the other side.
Finally, note that the establishment clause was not intended to mean
absolute separation of church and state like many zealous
separationists would have everybody believe.
What law says so?
You and other separationists continue to bully people into believing
that there is such a law.
You keep spamming the same tired old founders "Writings", or "what the
founders thought", but never addressing the reality that the USSC is
the ONLY legitimate entity to make that determination
You evidently don't understand the legislative, executive and judicial
powers of the government and why the Constitution established checks
and balances with respect to the use of these powers:
"One single object... [will merit] the endless gratitude of society:
that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation." --Thomas
Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:113
You're arguing the the USSC making rulings that don't coincide with
YOUR loony "interpretations" are unconstitutional
The only reason that you are siding with the decisions of activist
judges is that they're telling you what you want to hear, the
Constitution be damned:
"Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution.
Let us not make it a blank paper by construction." --Thomas Jefferson
to Wilson Nicholas, 1803. ME 10:419
That's loonyville from the word "go" ! !
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The real problem is the term GOVERNMENT |
17 Aug 2005 08:55:12 AM |
|
|
On 16 Aug 2005 17:03:14 -0700, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
You're refusing to make the distinction between federal and states
governments that the Founding Fathers had intended. As I have
indicated many times before, Jefferson reflected this distinction in
his writings:
Freddie:
Jeffersons "Writings" have NO relevance in law.
They are historical only
Whatever "Jefferson thought" (as well as any other founder) isn't
binding on law.
Are you that dense?
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: The real problem is the term GOVERNMENT |
17 Aug 2005 11:48:11 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On 16 Aug 2005 17:03:14 -0700, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
You're refusing to make the distinction between federal and states
governments that the Founding Fathers had intended. As I have
indicated many times before, Jefferson reflected this distinction in
his writings:
Freddie:
Jeffersons "Writings" have NO relevance in law.
They are historical only
Whatever "Jefferson thought" (as well as any other founder) isn't
binding on law.
But you're the Jefferson expert. Don't ignore that whenever you force
absolute "separation of church and state" into the establishment clause
that you are essentially using Jefferson's words.
You also cannot make the 10th Amendment go away. With or without
Jefferson, the 10th Amendment reserved for the states the power to
address religion since the 1st Amendment prohibited this power only to
the federal government.
Are you that dense?
I'm not dense. The bottom line is that you are evidently a master of
self-deception.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Sorry Freddie, The real problem is NOT the term GOVERNMENT |
17 Aug 2005 01:50:17 PM |
|
|
On 17 Aug 2005 09:48:11 -0700, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
You also cannot make the 10th Amendment go away.
And YOU cannot interpret the amendment
Only the USSC gets to do that.
If they make a ruling----that IS Law.
If they're "wrong", only THEY can make that determination,
You're still trying to substitute "adverse ruling" (to your belief) as
"unconstitutional"
And you don't seem capable of understanding that concept
There is NO history of "strict construction"---as a doctrine
There are "strict" or "narrow" rulings, that may, or may not coincide
with conservative extremists beliefs as "proper", but at NO time has
any court ever adopted a "standard" of "narrow construction" as
binding or proper.
You may "wish", or "believe" it should.
But had that been a legitimate concept, we'd have never survived the
first generation after the ratification.
=====================================================================
"Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication after this,
it is only an account of something which that person Says was a revelation
made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot
be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a
revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him."
Thomas Paine-----FOUNDER
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Sorry Freddie, The real problem is NOT the term GOVERNMENT |
17 Aug 2005 02:29:26 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On 17 Aug 2005 09:48:11 -0700, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
You also cannot make the 10th Amendment go away.
And YOU cannot interpret the amendment
I can interpret the amendment and I did.
And if I had agreed with your interpretation of the amendment then we
probably wouldn't be having this discussion.
Only the USSC gets to do that.
You're only saying that because the USSC is telling you what you want
to hear, the Constitution be damned.
If the ordinary man does not interpret the amendments then what's going
to stop judges from usurpring legislation?:
"One single object... [will merit] the endless gratitude of society:
that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation." --Thomas
Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:113
If they make a ruling----that IS Law.
You evidently do not understand the differences between legislative and
judicial power.
If they're "wrong", only THEY can make that determination,
Judges are not kings. How did you get so brainwashed?
You're still trying to substitute "adverse ruling" (to your belief) as
"unconstitutional"
I'm simply applying my basic reading skills to what the Constitution
says.
And you don't seem capable of understanding that concept
You were evidently taught to insult the intelligence of people who
disagree with you.
There is NO history of "strict construction"---as a doctrine
But Jefferson warned not to make the Constitution into a blank piece of
paper:
"Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution.
Let us not make it a blank paper by construction." --Thomas Jefferson
to Wilson Nicholas, 1803. ME 10:419
There are "strict" or "narrow" rulings, that may, or may not coincide
with conservative extremists beliefs as "proper", but at NO time has
any court ever adopted a "standard" of "narrow construction" as
binding or proper.
Jefferson told us how to interpret the Constitution:
"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore,
be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is
not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything
mean everything or nothing at pleasure." --Thomas Jefferson to William
Johnson, 1823. ME 15:450
"Common sense [is] the foundation of all authorities, of the laws
themselves, and of their construction." --Thomas Jefferson: Batture at
New Orleans, 1812. ME 18:92
You may "wish", or "believe" it should.
But had that been a legitimate concept, we'd have never survived the
first generation after the ratification.
=====================================================================
"Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication after this,
it is only an account of something which that person Says was a revelation
made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot
be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a
revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him."
Thomas Paine-----FOUNDER
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Sorry Freddie, The real problem is NOT the term GOVERNMENT |
17 Aug 2005 04:39:54 PM |
|
|
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Adenoid-Hinkel@LoonyRighwing.com wrote:
On 17 Aug 2005 09:48:11 -0700, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
You also cannot make the 10th Amendment go away.
And YOU cannot interpret the amendment
I can interpret the amendment and I did.
Your interpretation is utterly irrelevant to anyone but your
imagination.
Only the USSC gets to do that.
You're only saying that because the USSC is telling you what you want
to hear, the Constitution be damned.
The USSC does NOT always tell us what we want to hear. You will
perhaps recall the 2000 election decision, or more relevantly the
"ceremonial deism" interpretation of "In God We Trust".
If the ordinary man does not interpret the amendments then what's going
to stop judges from usurpring legislation?:
If ordinary men DO interpret the amendments then what's going to stop
judges from usurping legislation? Absolutely nothing, because
"ordinary men" have absolutely no power relevant to such.
If they make a ruling----that IS Law.
You evidently do not understand the differences between legislative and
judicial power.
The legislature can pass all the laws it wants. If the courts refuse
to consider a law to be valid when deciding a case, then that law is
meaningless. That is what a ruling that a law is "unconstitutional"
means in practice - it means that the court is saying that it rejects
that law as being a valid basis for a court decision.
And there is absolutely NOTHING that "ordinary men" have to do with
that situation.
If they're "wrong", only THEY can make that determination,
Judges are not kings. How did you get so brainwashed?
If they were kings then they might have even more power.
You're still trying to substitute "adverse ruling" (to your belief) as
"unconstitutional"
I'm simply applying my basic reading skills to what the Constitution
says.
Your basic reading skills are based on ignorance and/or
close-mindedness as to how the legal process works in this country.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Sorry Freddie, The real problem is NOT the term GOVERNMENT it still is you. |
18 Aug 2005 01:02:49 AM |
|
|
On 17 Aug 2005 12:29:26 -0700, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Adenoid-Hinkel@LoonyRighwing.com wrote:
On 17 Aug 2005 09:48:11 -0700, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
You also cannot make the 10th Amendment go away.
And YOU cannot interpret the amendment
I can interpret the amendment and I did.
But damn, Freddie
That's why you get laughed at.
And if I had agreed with your interpretation of the amendment then we
probably wouldn't be having this discussion.
I didn't interpret anything
I said ONLY the USSC gets to do that
Only the USSC gets to do that.
You're only saying that because the USSC is telling you what you want
to hear, the Constitution be damned.
How so?
The USSC rules consistently adversely to most everything I believe
If the ordinary man does not interpret the amendments then what's going
to stop judges from usurpring legislation?:
a) That's what Judges are SUPPOSED to do, Freddie. Legislatures are
controlled by special interests, swayed by money, subject to human
conditions like greed, racism, and a whole host of other maladies.
That's WHY the court "judicially reviews" legislation to make sure it
conforms to constitutional (and accepted) Law. The court was given
that authority for that reason.
b) Legislatures are fallible. They produce bad law---like accepting
the notion militias could be called out against strikers (and shoot
them), or interning Japanese-American citizens without compensaton,
trial, or other due process.
\
You evidently do not understand the differences between legislative and
judicial power.
Christ sake, Freddie
Civics 101.
They are CO-Equal
If they're "wrong", only THEY can make that determination,
Judges are not kings. How did you get so brainwashed?
They aren't. You are
Someone has propagandizes YOU to believe that "judicial activism" is
rampant and "ruining America"----when, in fact, it's really "adverse
rulings" that are killing conservatives (or did major damage to them
in the 60's) and the trick is to sway enough of you to believe that
it's bad.
it's called propaganda.
You're still trying to substitute "adverse ruling" (to your belief) as
"unconstitutional"
I'm simply applying my basic reading skills to what the Constitution
says.
YOU don't get to determine what it "means", Freddie.
And you don't seem capable of understanding that concept
You were evidently taught to insult the intelligence of people who
disagree with you.
You haven't been taught the difference between "belief" and "Fact"
There is NO history of "strict construction"---as a doctrine
But Jefferson warned not to make the Constitution into a blank piece of
paper:
The constitution, even according to founders like Madison, was a
FRAMEWORK with which to build a system of laws and rules for society
to follow.
There are "strict" or "narrow" rulings, that may, or may not coincide
with conservative extremists beliefs as "proper", but at NO time has
any court ever adopted a "standard" of "narrow construction" as
binding or proper.
Jefferson told us how to interpret the Constitution:
He doesn't have that right, Freddie.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The real problem is the term GOVERNMENT |
16 Aug 2005 04:58:53 PM |
|
|
Mean 1 wrote:
The only reason that we think the way we do today about "absolute"
church and state separation is because of unconstitutional
separationist political correctness.
So if Muslims get a State to recognize their religion as the one true
religion and outlaw Christianity then that is cool with you?
Someone didn't give him the memo; now that the
Republicans control the federal government, states'
rights are nonexistent.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
