The states, not the federal government, should have changed the Pledge

Sociology > Education > The states, not the federal government, should have changed the Pledge

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 8

Topic:	Sociology > Education
User:	"fred"
Date:	28 Sep 2005 05:55:20 PM
Object:	The states, not the federal government, should have changed the Pledge

Since the 1st Amendment prohibited only the federal government from
addressing religion, the 10th Amendment automatically delegated this
power uniquely to the states. The bottom line is that President
Eisenhower should have campaigned for the states to officially
incorporate "under God" into the Pledge instead of having Congress make
the law.
And for the activist judges, atheists and separationists who dread the
idea that the states could then make everybody recite the Pledge,
please put your brains into gear for once. Section 1 of the 14th
Amendment prohibits the states from using their power to address
religion to abridge the personal federal rights of US citizens. In
other words, the 14th Amendment prohibits the states from forcing you
to say anything that you don't want to say.
Note that the Supreme Court's politically correct interpretation of the
establishment clause doesn't have anything to do with this. Basic
reading skills tell us that the establishment clause simply helps to
define the kinds of laws that Congress is prohibited from writing.
For more information about how the 1st and 10th Amendments deal with
religion try:
http://www.renewamerica.us/readings/keyes_essay.htm
.

User: "Jeff Strickland"
Title: Re: The states, not the federal government, should have changed the Pledge	28 Sep 2005 07:14:16 PM

"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127948120.245636.24110@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

That view supposes that "under God" is a religious endorsement. Nobody ever
thought that until Newdow came along. Certainly, nobody thought that in
1954.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: The states, not the federal government, should have changed the Pledge	02 Oct 2005 08:14:11 AM

"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:

:|That view supposes that "under God" is a religious endorsement. Nobody ever
:|thought that until Newdow came along. Certainly, nobody thought that in
:|1954.

You are either dumb or a liar, jeffy. Which do you prefer to be called?
COMMENTS BY THOSE WHO FRAMED THE ACT OF 1954 (LEGISLATIVE INTENT)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.conservatism/msg/1a8f892a6f8858a?output=gplain===========================================================
Your shorter link is: http://makeashorterlink.com/?T242123EB
**************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS � Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.

User: ""
Title: Re: The states, not the federal government, should have changed the Pledge	05 Oct 2005 06:16:19 AM

"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:

:|That view supposes that "under God" is a religious endorsement. Nobody ever
:|thought that until Newdow came along. Certainly, nobody thought that in
:|1954.

User: ""
Title: Re: The states, not the federal government, should have changed the Pledge	05 Oct 2005 06:16:59 AM

"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:

:|That view supposes that "under God" is a religious endorsement. Nobody ever
:|thought that until Newdow came along. Certainly, nobody thought that in
:|1954.

User: "Cary Kittrell"
Title: Re: The states, not the federal government, should have changed the Pledge	28 Sep 2005 07:30:34 PM

In article <m-mdnTHpRfNErKbenZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@ez2.net> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> writes:

"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127948120.245636.24110@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

That view supposes that "under God" is a religious endorsement. Nobody ever
thought that until Newdow came along. Certainly, nobody thought that in
1954.

Beg pardon? It was a conscious attempt to draw a contrast between
our own -- religious -- society and "godless communism".
-- cary
.

User: "Jeff Strickland"
Title: Re: The states, not the federal government, should have changed the Pledge	28 Sep 2005 08:04:33 PM

"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:dhfcja$gn7$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...

In article <m-mdnTHpRfNErKbenZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@ez2.net> "Jeff Strickland"
<crwlr@yahoo.com> writes:

"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127948120.245636.24110@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

That view supposes that "under God" is a religious endorsement. Nobody
ever
thought that until Newdow came along. Certainly, nobody thought that in
1954.

Beg pardon? It was a conscious attempt to draw a contrast between
our own -- religious -- society and "godless communism".

Proclaiming or recognizing that a society is religious is not an endorsement
of religion. Saying that religion is good is not an establishment of
religion.
.

User: "Cary Kittrell"
Title: Re: The states, not the federal government, should have changed the Pledge	29 Sep 2005 11:04:12 AM

"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com>

"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:dhfcja$gn7$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...

In article <m-mdnTHpRfNErKbenZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@ez2.net> "Jeff Strickland"
<crwlr@yahoo.com> writes:

"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127948120.245636.24110@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

That view supposes that "under God" is a religious endorsement. Nobody
ever
thought that until Newdow came along. Certainly, nobody thought that in
1954.

Beg pardon? It was a conscious attempt to draw a contrast between
our own -- religious -- society and "godless communism".

Proclaiming or recognizing that a society is religious is not an endorsement
of religion. Saying that religion is good is not an establishment of
religion.

A Buddhist should choke on the words "under God". Any adherent
of the many non-monotheistic religions will be as uncomfortable
with the Pledge as you would be swearing an oath "under the gods"
or "by the Goddess".
That these things don't even occur to you underscores the fact that
this phrase gives official sanction to the default religions of
this country.
-- cary
.

User: ""
Title: Re: The states, not the federal government, should have changed the Pledge	09 Oct 2005 06:50:52 AM

"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:

You're comments would carry more weigth if:
The fouinders metioned God, Jesus, Christianity in the Constitution
Study Guide: Separation of Church and State - Indepth
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd0.htm
You're cooments would mean more if the Father of the Constituion and the
BORs hadn't written and or done the following things:
* Madison's vetoes: Some of The First Official Meanings Assigned to The
Establishment Clause (1811)
http://candst.tripod.com/madvetos.htm
James Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance (June,1785)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/memorial.htm
Excerpts from James Madison's Detached Memoranda (written after 1817)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/detach.htm
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. )
* The Ten Commandments Issues
o The Complete Ten Commandments, a Study Guide
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/10commsg.htm
o Congress Shall Make No Law Respecting the Establishment of
Reason. Neal Blanchett, Esq. comments on the Ten Commandments controversy.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/blanch2.htm
o The Seven Lost Commandments
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/7lostcom.htm
o Rev. John Leland on the Ten Commandments, Judge Moore and other
related things
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/leland10.htm
Study Guide: The Roots of American Democracy
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd8.htm
Roots of American Law
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/histlaw.htm
The Christian Bible and the Foundations of the U. S.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/biblfoun.htm
How often did the founders quote the Bible?
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/arg9.htm
Did Montesquieu base his theory of separation of powers on the Bible?
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/montesquieu.htm
Christianity and the Constitution
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/arg10.htm
Does the Constitution Embody Christian Thought and Morality?
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/arg10a.htm
The "Sundays Excepted" clause
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/arg10b.htm
"The Year of Our Lord" and separation.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/arg10c.htm
Federal officials take their oaths upon a Bible, and use the words
"so help me God." http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/arg11.htm
* A Baptist minister and follow warrior with Jefferson, Madison
and others in the struggle for religious freedom gave this advice
about electing public officials: "...guard against those men who make
a great noise about religion..."
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/leland5.htm
* Madison's Arguments Against Special Religious Sanction of
American Government
http://candst.tripod.com/madlib.htm
* Treaty of Tripoli, 1796: Little-Known U.S. Document Signed by
President Adams Proclaims America's Government Is Secular
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tripoli1.htm
Is it true that Madison said "Our future is staked on the 10
commandments?"
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/misq1.htm
Is it true that Madison said "Religion is the foundation of government?"
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/misq2.htm
Age Of Reason
http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/Paine/AOR-Frame.html
**************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS � Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.

User: ""
Title: Re: The states, not the federal government, should have changed the Pledge	07 Oct 2005 06:37:53 AM

Jeff Strickland wrote:

"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:dhfcja$gn7$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...

In article <m-mdnTHpRfNErKbenZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@ez2.net> "Jeff Strickland"
<crwlr@yahoo.com> writes:

"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127948120.245636.24110@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

That view supposes that "under God" is a religious endorsement. Nobody
ever
thought that until Newdow came along. Certainly, nobody thought that in
1954.

Beg pardon? It was a conscious attempt to draw a contrast between
our own -- religious -- society and "godless communism".

Proclaiming or recognizing that a society is religious is not an endorsement
of religion.

But the pledge doesnt state the the society is religious. It states
very clearly that God exists and that he is "above" the USA. That is
very clearly an endorsement of religion. Monotheist religions in
particular and the worship of a deity known in English as "God" (also
known as Yahweh) in particular.
If the pledge said "One Nation, which has a lot of people who believe
in a deity they call God" then perhaps you would have a point. But it
doesn't. So you don't.

Saying that religion is good is not an establishment of
religion.

User: ""
Title: Re: The states, not the federal government, should have changed the Pledge	28 Sep 2005 08:54:47 PM

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 18:04:33 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
<crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:

"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:dhfcja$gn7$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...

In article <m-mdnTHpRfNErKbenZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@ez2.net> "Jeff Strickland"
<crwlr@yahoo.com> writes:

"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127948120.245636.24110@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

That view supposes that "under God" is a religious endorsement. Nobody
ever
thought that until Newdow came along. Certainly, nobody thought that in
1954.

Beg pardon? It was a conscious attempt to draw a contrast between
our own -- religious -- society and "godless communism".

Proclaiming or recognizing that a society is religious is not an endorsement
of religion. Saying that religion is good is not an establishment of
religion.

It IS an endorsement of religion when the endorsement is directed at a
totally exclusionary religious dogma.
"Thou shall have NO other gods before me"----is a specific
judeochristian command. It isn't the Buddhist god we're talking about
here---but the judeochristian one.
Couple that with the tons of "endorsements" daily by religious nuts,
legislators (in varying degrees) embracing the bible, constitutes
"promotion".
.

User: "Jeff Strickland"
Title: Re: The states, not the federal government, should have changed the Pledge	29 Sep 2005 10:49:00 AM

<Knickkkers@Hang-up.com> wrote in message
news:v4imj1h171q837irc7sci1kphqgu1d1mgn@4ax.com...

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 18:04:33 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
<crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:

"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:dhfcja$gn7$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...

In article <m-mdnTHpRfNErKbenZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@ez2.net> "Jeff Strickland"
<crwlr@yahoo.com> writes:

"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127948120.245636.24110@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

That view supposes that "under God" is a religious endorsement. Nobody
ever
thought that until Newdow came along. Certainly, nobody thought that in
1954.

Beg pardon? It was a conscious attempt to draw a contrast between
our own -- religious -- society and "godless communism".

Proclaiming or recognizing that a society is religious is not an
endorsement
of religion. Saying that religion is good is not an establishment of
religion.

<snip>

Couple that with the tons of "endorsements" daily by religious nuts,
legislators (in varying degrees) embracing the bible, constitutes
"promotion".

Here is the crux of the matter, you really are taking aim at the PERSONAL
religious views of all manner of government official, legislators, president
and staff, judges, and even the lowly government employee that comes to work
with Cross ear rigns or cuff links. You are seeking to erect a wall of
separation tha tis so tall and wide that the personal views of elected,
appointed and employed officials can be silenced in the public sphere. That
is the agenda here.
You are saying that because any of these officials go to church, then they
endorse religion and they are not allowed to do that. If an "endorsement"
exists in the Pledge, then it exists in lots of places where it is a
personal view, but because the person is an official then it is illegal.
Now that we know the real agenda ...
.

User: ""
Title: Re: The states, not the federal government, should have changed the Pledge	09 Oct 2005 07:36:20 AM

"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:

:|
:|Here is the crux of the matter, you really are taking aim at the PERSONAL
:|religious views of all manner of government official, legislators, president
:|and staff, judges, and even the lowly government employee that comes to work
:|with Cross ear rigns or cuff links. You are seeking to erect a wall of
:|separation tha tis so tall and wide that the personal views of elected,
:|appointed and employed officials can be silenced in the public sphere. That
:|is the agenda here.
:|
:|You are saying that because any of these officials go to church, then they
:|endorse religion and they are not allowed to do that. If an "endorsement"
:|exists in the Pledge, then it exists in lots of places where it is a
:|personal view, but because the person is an official then it is illegal.
:|
:|Now that we know the real agenda ...

Too bad, jeffy is wrong again
But jeffy is famous for his ignorance
Jeff Strickland displays his "intelligence and knowledge"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats/msg/96d51bf8dace2663?hl=en&
Yes, you do love to flaunt your ignorance
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/01961b0e44a090eb?hl=en&
Your shorter link is: http://makeashorterlink.com/?J49E320FB
Here is only some that show him to be wrong
******************************
"Few persons more clearly act as a government official on behalf of the
state than a judge in his courtroom. He should always remember that the
democratic process gave him his office and that he is accountable as a
public agent to all who have business within his courtroom. Along with the
power to issue the state's criminal punishments upon offenders, a judge has
the power to compel citizens to serve as jurors, to require citizens to
testify before the court, and to punish by contempt any person who refuses
to yield to judicial authority. As long as a judge sits on the bench, he
acts not as a private individual, but on behalf of government. Thus, when a
judge directs an invocation to be given or displays religious art, it is a
religious act advanced by the state and not merely a personal expression of
faith. The state's imprimatur inevitably is placed on the prayer and the
display, and government can no longer be considered neutral in the purest
sense, because its powers are being used to endorse religion."
SOURCE: Editorial: Religion and the abuse of Judicial Power, Derek H. Davis
Journal of Church and State, Volume 39, Spring 1997, Number 2, p. 207
*************************************
RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
http://www.ed.gov/Speeches/08-1995/religion.html
PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO
PROMOTE EVANGELISM, AMERICANS UNITED
TELLS APPEALS COURT
Teachers Cannot Be Forced To Distribute Fliers For Religious
Outreach, Watchdog Group Advises Three-Judge Panel
http://www.au.org/press/pr030326.htm
Religion in the Public Schools: A Joint Statement of Current Law
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/jnt-sta.htm
WORK PLACE RIGHTS [Religious]
http://www.aclj.org/resources/workrts/index.asp
****************************************
OCTOBER 3, 2003
---------------------------------------------------------------------
California Appellate Districts
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TURLOCK JOINT ELEMENTARY SCH. DIST. v. PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BD.
(10/03/03 - No. F041187)
A teacher's wearing of union buttons in the classroom during class time
constitutes "political activity," which may be restricted by the District
under the Education Code.
To read the full text of this opinion, go to:
http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?dest=ca/caapp4th/slip/2003/f0...
[The above might apply to religious buttons as well.]
************************************************************8
AND THE FOLLOWING DISAGREES WITH YOU
*********************************************
NOVEMBER 13, 2003
The court order from Alabama Court of the Judiciary removing Roy Moore from
the office of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama can be assessed
at:
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/religion/inremoore111303opn.pdf
*********************************************
*********************************************
NOVEMBER 3, 2003
Justices Reject Judge's Ten Commandments Appeal
By James Vicini
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) rejected
on Monday appeals by Alabama's embattled top judge, Roy Moore, who has
waged an unsuccessful legal battle to display the Ten Commandments at the
state judicial building.
Without comment, the high court refused to hear two appeals by Moore, who
was suspended after refusing to comply with a federal judge's order in
August to remove the granite monument inscribed with the commandments
because it violated constitutional church-state separation.
The high court in recent years has let stand other U.S. appeals court
rulings that have barred the display of large granite monuments engraved
with the Ten Commandments on the grounds of state capitals.
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
Page 14
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/110303pzor.pdf
MANDAMUS DENIED
03-258 IN RE ROY S. MOORE, CHIEF JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
The petition for a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition is denied.
*********************************************
*********************************************
AUGUST 20, 2003
U.S. SUPREME COURT DENIES REQUEST TO BLOCK REMOVAL OF ALABAMA COMMANDMENTS
DISPLAY
The U.S. Supreme Court today turned away another last-ditch effort by
Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore to thwart a federal court order that he
remove his granite Ten Commandments monument from the state Judicial
Building.
This morning Moore filed a request with the Supreme Court to block U.S.
District Judge Myron Thompson's order that the granite Ten Commandments be
removed from the rotunda of the judicial building by Aug. 20. Thompson's
order indicated that if Moore refused to comply, he could be found in
contempt of court and substantial fines could be levied against the state.
In a one-sentence statement issued late today, the high court denied
Moore's request to nullify Thompson's order for removal of the monument.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
*********************************************
AUGUST 5, 2003
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. -- A federal judge ruled Tuesday that Chief Justice Roy
Moore has 15 days to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the Alabama
Judiciary Building.
U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson said in his order that Moore now must
remove the monument by Aug. 20. Moore is appealing Thompson's ruling that
the monument in unconstitutional to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Final Judgment Glassroth vs Moore, August 5,
2003: PDF, Word, WordPerfect
Final Judgment in the Moore case may be viewed here:
http://www.almd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/index_of_opinions.htm
http://www.nbc13.com/news/2383080/detail.html
*********************************************
JULY 1, 2003
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
GLASSROTH v. MOORE (07/01/03 - No. 02-16708, 02-16949)
A Ten Commandments monument installed in the Alabama State Judicial
Building by the Chief Judge of the Alabama Supreme Court violates the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and the monument must be
removed.
To read the full text of this opinion, go to:[PDF File]
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/11th/0216708p.pdf
*********************************************
*********************************************
NOVEMBER 18, 2002
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GLASSROTH v.. MOORE, (11-18-02) CIVIL ACTION NO. 01-T-1268-N.
A Ten Commandments monument in the rotunda of Alabama's judicial building
violates the constitution's ban on government promotion of religion, a
federal judge ruled Monday.
U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson gave Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore,
who had had the 5,300-pound granite monument installed in the state
building, 30 days to remove it.
To read the full text of this opinion, go to:[PDF File]
http://www.almd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/index_of_opinions.htm
http://www.almd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Glassroth%20v%20Moore%20Opinion...
===============================================
[EMPHASIS ADDED]
The still more important fact is that the type of article used in the
establishment clause makes no difference. The First Amendment does not say
that Congress shall not establish a religion or create an establishment of
religion. It says Congress shall make no law RESPECTING an establishment of
religion. Whether "respecting" connotes honoring or concerning, the clause
means that Congress shall make no law on that subject THE BAN IS NOT JUST
ON ESTABLISHMENTS OF RELIGION BUT ON LAWS RESPECTING
THEM, A FACT THAT ALLOWS A LAW TO FALL SHORT OF CREATING AN ESTABLISHMENT
YET STILL BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
(SOURCE: The Establishment Clause, Religion and the First Amendment,
Leonard W. Levy, Second Edition, Revised, The University of North Carolina
Press, (1994) p. 118
-----------------------------------------------
THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE AS DEFINED IN 1947:
-----------------------------------------------
The Establishment Clause as defined by the USSC in Everson v. Bd of Ed,
1947
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at
least this:
(1) neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.
(2) Neither can pass laws which aid one religion,
(2a) aid all religions,
(2b) or prefer one religion over another.
(3) Neither can force
(3a) nor influence a person to go to
(3b) or to remain away from church against his will
(3c) or force him to profess a belief
(3d) or disbelief in any religion.
(4) No person can be punished for entertaining [p*16]
(4a) or professing religious beliefs
(4b) or disbeliefs,
(4c) for church attendance
(4d) or non-attendance.
(5) No tax in any amount,
(5a) large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities
(5b) or institutions, whatever they may be called,
(5c) or whatever form they may adopt to teach
(5d) or practice religion.
(6) Neither a state
(6a) nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the
(6b) affairs of any religious organizations
(6c) or groups,
(6d) and vice versa.
************************************
U.S.N.Y. 1973. A law may be one "respecting the establishment of religion'
even though its consequence is not to promote a state religion, and even
though it does not aid one religion more than another but merely benefits
all religions alike. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 1.-Committee For Public Ed. and
Rel'g'ous Liberty v, Nyquist, 93 S.Ct. 2955, 413 U.S. 756, 37 L.Ed.2d 948,
concurring opinion Committee for Public Ed. & Religous Lib. v. Nyquist, 93
S,Ct. 2988, 413 U.S. 756, 37 L.Ed.2d 948, dissenting opinion 93 S.Ct, 2993,
413 U.S. 756, 37 L.Ed.2d 948.
Careful examination is required of any law challenged on establishment
grounds, with a view to ascertaining whether it furthers any of evils
against which the establishment clause protects. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend.
I.-Id.
In order to pass muster under establishment clause, law in question must
reflect a clearly secular legislative purpose, have primary effect which
neither advances nor inhibits religion and avoid excessive governmental
entanglement with religion. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. I.-Id.
**************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS � Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.

User: ""
Title: Re: The states, not the federal government, should have changed the Pledge	29 Sep 2005 02:16:05 PM

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 08:49:00 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
<crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:

Here is the crux of the matter, you really are taking aim at the PERSONAL
religious views of all manner of government official, legislators, president
and staff, judges, and even the lowly government employee that comes to work
with Cross ear rigns or cuff links. You are seeking to erect a wall of
separation tha tis so tall and wide that the personal views of elected,
appointed and employed officials can be silenced in the public sphere. That
is the agenda here.

You are saying that because any of these officials go to church, then they
endorse religion and they are not allowed to do that. If an "endorsement"
exists in the Pledge, then it exists in lots of places where it is a
personal view, but because the person is an official then it is illegal.

Jeffy, THEY are insistent crafting laws (using government) to put
those beliefs into PUBLIC POLICY
Every law that bases it's predication on judeochristian THEOLOGY (not
philosophy) is "government promotion of religion"
PERIOD !
.

User: "Gray Shockley"
Title: Re: The states, not the federal government, should have changed the Pledge	28 Sep 2005 09:23:03 PM

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 20:04:33 -0500,
Jeff Strickland wrote
:

Proclaiming or recognizing that a society
is religious is not an endorsement
of religion.

Especially when that "religious society" has the
highest incarceration rate in the world as well
as - iirc - the highest execution rate.

Saying that religion is good is not
an establishment of religion.

If it's the government saying it, it's an
establishment of religion.
And how about if a "representative" of a
government says "Religion is evil, bad and silly.
Unless you share my religion which is good. If
you're the same religion I am, you'll get a
[better grade] or [lower taxes] or [visitation
with your jailed husband more often than once a
month].
And, of course, my religion is good but you don't
have to share it unless you want [wink, wink].
On this way is the left hand path.
Gray Shockley
--------------------------
Swinehood hath no remedy.
- Sidney Lanier
.

User: "Rich Travsky "
Title: Re: The states, not the federal government, should have changed thePledge	01 Oct 2005 12:16:45 AM

Jeff Strickland wrote:

"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127948120.245636.24110@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

That view supposes that "under God" is a religious endorsement. Nobody ever
thought that until Newdow came along. Certainly, nobody thought that in
1954.

1954? Awareness is much better now.
RT
.

User: "Sid9"
Title: Re: The states, not the federal government, should have changed the Pledge	28 Sep 2005 08:16:51 PM

Jeff Strickland wrote:

"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127948120.245636.24110@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

That view supposes that "under God" is a religious endorsement.
Nobody ever thought that until Newdow came along. Certainly, nobody
thought that in 1954.

The people who put
it there thought of it
as religious endorsement
opposing the godless
communists in the
Soviet Union..
That's what it was then,
That's what it is now.
Newdow is right.
.

User: "fred"
Title: Re: The states, not the federal government, should have changed the Pledge	28 Sep 2005 09:53:30 PM

Sid9 wrote:

Jeff Strickland wrote:

"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127948120.245636.24110@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

That view supposes that "under God" is a religious endorsement.
Nobody ever thought that until Newdow came along. Certainly, nobody
thought that in 1954.

The people who put
it there thought of it
as religious endorsement
opposing the godless
communists in the
Soviet Union..

That's what it was then,
That's what it is now.

Newdow is right.

Newdow is right that the public schools shouldn't require the children
of atheists to recite the "religious" Pledge. Requiring atheist
children to do such things violates their 14th Amendment protections.
Newdow is flat wrong to assert that the Founding Father's had decided
on absolute church and state separation. Such assertions go against
the 10th Amendment and Jefferson's own words:
"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
.

User: "fred"
Title: Re: The states, not the federal government, should have changed the Pledge	28 Sep 2005 07:36:20 PM

Jeff Strickland wrote:

"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127948120.245636.24110@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

That view supposes that "under God" is a religious endorsement. Nobody ever
thought that until Newdow came along. Certainly, nobody thought that in
1954.

Although it is wrong to force people to recite the Pledge, I agree that
"under God" has no teeth whatsoever with respect to being a religious
endorsement. However, the Supreme Court had pulled a fast one with
respect to its twisted interpretation of the establishment clause with
the Everson opinion in 1947. So even then the people didn't understand
that, despite what the Supreme Court claimed about the establishment
clause, the states uniquely had the power to address religion.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: The states, not the federal government, should have changed the Pledge	02 Oct 2005 08:18:05 AM

"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

:|Although it is wrong to force people to recite the Pledge, I agree that
:|"under God" has no teeth whatsoever with respect to being a religious
:|endorsement.

Who do you really think cares waht you agree with?

:\However, the Supreme Court had pulled a fast one with
:|respect to its twisted interpretation of the establishment clause with
:|the Everson opinion in 1947.

Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ordinary or extraordinary claims require ordinary or extraordinary proof.
If you're going to claim something and especially something outlandish
you're going to need some pretty extraordinary and/or irrefutable proof to
back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's the ordinary or
extraordinary proof for their ordinary or extraordinary claims? If one is
not responding with ordinary or extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the
claim is not worth considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ as Homer@nospam said]
Why is asking for "proof" considered truculence? Do you consider it
truculence for a judge to ask for evidence in a trial. Would you rather
that
people just testified that they believed in the guilt of the suspect?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[as Gray Shockley said:]
Your "opinion" is not an adequate citation.
You forgot your citations.
Or, are your opinions more valid than facts?
You do realize, do you not?, that opinion without substantiation is just
propaganda for those without critical thinking abilities and originate with
those who are attempting to manipulate rather than those who are attempting
to clarify.

:| So even then the people didn't understand
:|that, despite what the Supreme Court claimed about the establishment
:|clause, the states uniquely had the power to address religion.

From:

-
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:06:14 -0400
Local: Fri, Aug 19 2005 10:06 am
Subject: Re: SOME THOUGHTS ON RELIGION AND LAW

wrote:
:|> SOME THOUGHTS ON RELIGION AND LAW
:|>
:|> 1.The Constitution did not provide any mechanism for the establishment of
:|> religion or for the support of religion

Some Thoughts on Religion and Law
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/bthot-lr.htm

"fred" <clar...@gmail.com> wrote:

:|More specifically, the 1st Amendment of the federal BOR sterilized the
:|federal government with respect to having any power to address
:|religion. And if you go down to the 10th Amendment which you and
:|others have been reluctant to admit even exists, you will see that the
:|10th Amendment automatically reserved the power to address religion for
:|the states.

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 foudn 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
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
From: Bob LeChevalier <

>
Newsgroups:
alt.religion.christian,alt.politics.gw-bush,alt.politics.republican,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.ed
ucation
Subject: Re: So-called theocratic states vs section 1 of 14th Amendment
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 05:46:26 -0400
"fred" <clar...@gmail.com> wrote:

Whether "Jefferson said" so or not, the interpretaton by the USSC (the
ONLY entity allowed to do so) has established that doctrine
generations ago.

But the Court "established that doctrine" based on Jeffersons words.

It would have established that "doctrine" no matter who said it.

Incredible :^(

What's incredible? Other than your continuing to pontificate in
ignorance.
Have you READ the Everson decision that you think yourself qualified
to counter? The court DID NOT define the Establishment Clause based
on Jefferson's words. You could remove the quote from Jefferson from
the text and it wouldn't change their reasoning a whit, since it was
not part of their reasoning. They tacked the quote on the END, as a
short summary

Offering "essays", "writings", or other non-relevant, extraneous crap
won't alter the fact.

Again, the Court used Jefferson's writings to justify their doctrine
anyway.

The notion that a "wall" exists would exist independent of Jefferson.
If sponge bob said it even.

You're in a fantasy world.

The "wall" is a metaphor for the formal legal definition that the
court decided in Everson. They did not need Jefferson's quote.
Adding it made good rhetoric, as indeed many speakers and writers add
relevant quotes from great people to spice up their writing.
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
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Kindly explain to the readers that overall importance of Jefferson's letter
in reply to the Danbury Baptists Association in defining the Establishment
Clause in light of the following information:
Neither Jefferson nor his letter created church state separation.
The Principle of church state separation was embodied in the unamended
constitution while Jefferson was in France.
Madison had and has a major bearing on all forms of church state
jurisprudence (Over 100 state and federal court cases)
All court opinions in the realm fall under the accommodational position of
J Story or the strict separation position of Madison or some combination
of the two.
They are basically revivals of the old debate between the Storyites and
the Madisonians.
o Two Views: James Madison's and Joseph Story's
http://candst.tripod.com/joestor2.htm
As the information I provided in the following shows, Madison defined the
Establishment Clause and it was the Madison view that the USSC used in
Everson v Bd of Ed in legally (by court of law) defining the Establishment
Clause:
******************************************************************
FURTHER INFORMATION
* Excerpts from James Madison's Autobiography
http://candst.tripod.com/madauto.html
****************************************************
In Virginia, on the other hand where the Anglican establishment
bad been less generous to dissenters than the Congregationalists of New
England, it was rather the radical separationist view which triumphed under
the leadership of Madison and Jefferson. And this Virginia struggle was
the immediate background of the drafting of the First Amendment.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: John Witherspoon on Church and State, by James
Hastings Nichols. JOURNAL OF PRESBYTERIAN HISTORY, 42, (1964)
pp 171-73)
******************************************************
Joseph Story v. James Madison from the grave
It can be said that the majority court in Marsh as well as the modern ultra
conservatives, some moderate conservatives, religious right,
accommodationmists and non-preferentialist speak the Joseph Story position
while the dissenting opinions in Marsh as well as some moderates and
moderate conservatives, liberals and strict separationists of all walks
speak the Madison position.
****************************************
While all of the opinions in Marsh are deficient to some degree as
a matter of historical analysis, it is clear in a policy sense that the
differences between the majority and the dissenters is but a revival of
the old debate between the Storyites and the Madisonians. As has been
shown, the framers did not resolve this dispute; politics and perhaps even
prudence dictated that they leave its resolution to posterity. These views
form the limits within which legitimate decision making may occur.
SOURCE: Public Prayer and the Constitution: A Case Study in Constitutional
Interpretation, Rodeny K. Smith, Scholarly Resources, Inc. (1987) pp.
257-259
***********************************************************
EVERSON v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF EWING TP., 330 U.S. 1 (1947)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=330&invol=1
Madison's vetoes: Some of The First Official Meanings Assigned to The
Establishment Clause
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/madvetos.htm
and this:
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
===============================================
[EMPHASIS ADDED]
The still more important fact is that the type of article used in the
establishment clause makes no difference. The First Amendment does not say
that Congress shall not establish a religion or create an establishment of
religion. It says Congress shall make no law RESPECTING an establishment of
religion. Whether "respecting" connotes honoring or concerning, the clause
means that Congress shall make no law on that subject THE BAN IS NOT JUST
ON ESTABLISHMENTS OF RELIGION BUT ON LAWS RESPECTING
THEM, A FACT THAT ALLOWS A LAW TO FALL SHORT OF CREATING AN ESTABLISHMENT
YET STILL BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
(SOURCE: The Establishment Clause, Religion and the First Amendment,
Leonard W. Levy, Second Edition, Revised, The University of North Carolina
Press, (1994) p. 118
-----------------------------------------------
THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE AS DEFINED IN 1947:
-----------------------------------------------
The Establishment Clause as defined by the USSC in Everson v. Bd of Ed,
1947
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at
least this:
(1) neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.
(2) Neither can pass laws which aid one religion,
(2a) aid all religions,
(2b) or prefer one religion over another.
(3) Neither can force
(3a) nor influence a person to go to
(3b) or to remain away from church against his will
(3c) or force him to profess a belief
(3d) or disbelief in any religion.
(4) No person can be punished for entertaining [p*16]
(4a) or professing religious beliefs
(4b) or disbeliefs,
(4c) for church attendance
(4d) or non-attendance.
(5) No tax in any amount,
(5a) large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities
(5b) or institutions, whatever they may be called,
(5c) or whatever form they may adopt to teach
(5d) or practice religion.
(6) Neither a state
(6a) nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the
(6b) affairs of any religious organizations
(6c) or groups,
(6d) and vice versa.
************************************
U.S.N.Y. 1973. A law may be one "respecting the establishment of religion'
even though its consequence is not to promote a state religion, and even
though it does not aid one religion more than another but merely benefits
all religions alike. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 1.-Committee For Public Ed. and
Rel'g'ous Liberty v, Nyquist, 93 S.Ct. 2955, 413 U.S. 756, 37 L.Ed.2d 948,
concurring opinion Committee for Public Ed. & Religous Lib. v. Nyquist, 93
S,Ct. 2988, 413 U.S. 756, 37 L.Ed.2d 948, dissenting opinion 93 S.Ct, 2993,
413 U.S. 756, 37 L.Ed.2d 948.
Careful examination is required of any law challenged on establishment
grounds, with a view to ascertaining whether it furthers any of evils
against which the establishment clause protects. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend.
I.-Id.
In order to pass muster under establishment clause, law in question must
reflect a clearly secular legislative purpose, have primary effect which
neither advances nor inhibits religion and avoid excessive governmental
entanglement with religion. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. I.-Id.
Propriety of a legislature's purpose may not immunize from scrutiny a law
which either has primary effect that advances religion or which fosters
excessive entanglements between church and state. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend.
I.-Id.
Absence of any element of coercion is irrelevant to questions arising under
establishment clause, as opposed to free exercise clause, of the First
Amendment. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. I.-Id.
A proper respect for both the free exercise and the establishment clauses
compels the state to pursue a course of neutrality toward religion.
U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. I.-Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
From:

Newsgroups:
alt.religion.christian,alt.politics.gw-bush,alt.politics.republican,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.ed
ucation
Subject: Re: So-called theocratic states vs section 1 of 14th Amendment
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 12:06:23 -0600
On 17 Aug 2005 19:01:27 -0700, "fred" <clar...@gmail.com> wrote:

The 10th Amendment reserved for the states the power to address
religion since the 1st Amendment of the federal BOR prohibits this
power only to the federal government

Christ sake fred
"Essays" aren't law.
Citizens are afforded equal protection of law.
States cannot address constitutional questions that affect ALL
citizens and "interpretations" other than the USSC are bogus.
Government (state, local, federal) cannot set up, endorse, promote,
pander to, wink at, or in any way favor religious stupidity as policy.
Whether "Jefferson said" so or not, the interpretaton by the USSC (the
ONLY entity allowed to do so) has established that doctrine
generations ago.
Offering "essays", "writings", or other non-relevant, extraneous crap
won't alter the fact.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

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
************************************************************
cloim <c...@propylaea.tor.org> wrote:

:|
:|As he says the word "congress" does appear to state that the 1st amendment
:|does not apply to the states. And I see no reason to believe that is an
:|inaccurate reading.

wrote in message
There was a reason for that. Congress was singled out because it was the
most powerful however, the writings of Madison makes it clear that it
wasn't just congress that was meant. The government, as a whole, was
meant
cloim <c...@propylaea.tor.org> wrote:

:|However, as others have already pointed out, the 14th amendment changed
:|things...

wrote in message
That is true which totally makes fred's daily spamming trolling posts
totally irrelevant as well as articles written by those pointing what was,
once irrelevant.
Slavery was permitted by the Constitution but few cite that today to say we
should return to that.
if we returned to what was, as these people advocate, this is what we could
have to give up:
The following list shows the provisions in the Bill of Rights that have
been incorporated via the 14th Amendment:
* (5) 1897 -- Right to Just Compensation
* (1) 1925 -- Freedom of Speech [dictum]
1927 [holding]
* (1) 1931 -- Freedom of the Press
* (6) 1932 -- Assistance of Counsel in capital case
* (1) 1937 -- Freedom of Assembly
* (1) 1940 -- Free Exercise of Religion
* (1) 1947 -- Ban on Religious Establishment
* (4) 1948 -- Right to public trial
* (4) 1949 -- Right against unreasonable Search and Seizure
* (1) 1958 -- Freedom of Association (1958)
* (4) 1961 -- Exclusionary Rule
* (8) 1962 -- Ban on Cruel and Unusual Punishment
* (6) 1963 -- Assistance of counsel in all felony cases
* (5) 1964 -- Right against Self-incrimination
* (6) 1965 -- Right to confront adverse witnesses
* (6) 1966 -- Right to impartial trial
* (6) 1967 -- Right to Compulsory Process to obtain witnesses
* (6) 1967 -- Right to Speedy Trial
* (6) 1968 -- Right to Jury in nonpetty criminal cases
* (5) 1969 -- Right against Double Jeopardy
* (6) 1972 -- Right to counsel imprisonable misdemeanor cases
* (6) 1972 -- Right to notice of accusation
* (6) 1979 -- Right to a unanimous verdict if only six jurors
Source of Information: The Evolving Constitution, How the Supreme Court
Has Ruled on Issues from Abortion to Zoning. By Jethro K. Lieberman, Random
House (1992) pp. 258, 260.
Actually what the theocrats like fred, Alan Keyes most of the others would
really like to do is just make the Establishment Clause go away and maybe
in a number of instances the free exercise clause.
However, what they overlook is that most state constitutions have the same
provisions and sometimes even stricter.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amend. To improve. To change for the better by
removing defects or faults. To change, correct,
revise. See Amendment.
Amendment. To change or modify for the better.
To alter by modification, deletion, or addition.
SOURCE: Black's Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition Centennial Edition
(1891-1991) West Publishing (1991) p 52
*****************************************************************
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
[excerpt]
From a attorney practicing law in Tenn.:
Jim, I was debating Church State issues on the Prodigy News BB
http://cmty.prodigy.net, under Constitutional Issues. However, this is a
proprietary board and they won't let you post unless you are a Prodigy
member. I think that you can read the board if you want to, though. The
real
debate, it seems, is over Fourteenth Amendment incorporation and, frankly,
the other side has an arguable historical case. My personal opinion is that
the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did intend to incorporate the
Establishment Clause and make it applicable to the states, but they
intended
to do so under the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment, not due process. Then the Supreme Court gave a narrow
construction of privileges and immunities in the Slaughterhouse Cases, so
it
was necessary for future courts to either overrule the Slaughterhouse
Cases,
which they have not done, or do what Congress intended in the first place,
but under the due process clause. Of course, by the time the Fourteenth
Amendment was ratified every state had disestablished its official church
or
churches. And fortunately, the other side usually wants to debate whether
Jefferson was a Christian or not, and not the Fourteenth Amendment. . .
-Lee
[end excerpt]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Establishment Clause
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/estclause.htm
Study Guide: Separation of Church and State - Indepth
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd0.htm
**************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS � Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.

User: ""
Title: Re: The states, not the federal government, should have changed the Pledge	28 Sep 2005 08:55:55 PM

On 28 Sep 2005 17:36:20 -0700, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

Jeff Strickland wrote:

"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127948120.245636.24110@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

That view supposes that "under God" is a religious endorsement. Nobody ever
thought that until Newdow came along. Certainly, nobody thought that in
1954.

Although it is wrong to force people to recite the Pledge, I agree that
"under God" has no teeth whatsoever with respect to being a religious
endorsement.

It does when the same legislatures publicly state the specific god is
the judeochristian one.
.

User: "fred"
Title: Re: The states, not the federal government, should have changed the Pledge	28 Sep 2005 09:46:19 PM

wrote:

On 28 Sep 2005 17:36:20 -0700, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

Jeff Strickland wrote:

"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127948120.245636.24110@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

That view supposes that "under God" is a religious endorsement. Nobody ever
thought that until Newdow came along. Certainly, nobody thought that in
1954.

Although it is wrong to force people to recite the Pledge, I agree that
"under God" has no teeth whatsoever with respect to being a religious
endorsement.

It does when the same legislatures publicly state the specific god is
the judeochristian one.

If I understand you correctly, I agree that this may have been the case
before the 14th Amendment was written. But although I don't understand
how simply declaring that a specific god is the judeochristian one has
any kind of teeth, the 14th Amendment says that non-Christians can
simply ignore their legislatures when they say such things anyway.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: The states, not the federal government, should have changed the Pledge	02 Oct 2005 08:14:01 AM

"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

:|
:|Knickkkers@Hang-up.com wrote:
:|> On 28 Sep 2005 17:36:20 -0700, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
:|>
:|> >Jeff Strickland wrote:
:|> >> "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
:|> >> news:1127948120.245636.24110@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
:|> >> > Since the 1st Amendment prohibited only the federal government from
:|> >> > addressing religion, the 10th Amendment automatically delegated this
:|> >> > power uniquely to the states. The bottom line is that President
:|> >> > Eisenhower should have campaigned for the states to officially
:|> >> > incorporate "under God" into the Pledge instead of having Congress make
:|> >> > the law.
:|> >> >
:|> >>
:|> >>
:|> >> That view supposes that "under God" is a religious endorsement. Nobody ever
:|> >> thought that until Newdow came along. Certainly, nobody thought that in
:|> >> 1954.
:|> >
:|> >Although it is wrong to force people to recite the Pledge, I agree that
:|> >"under God" has no teeth whatsoever with respect to being a religious
:|> >endorsement.
:|>
:|> It does when the same legislatures publicly state the specific god is
:|> the judeochristian one.
:|If I understand you correctly, I agree that this may have been the case
:|before the 14th Amendment was written. But although I don't understand
:|how simply declaring that a specific god is the judeochristian one has
:|any kind of teeth, the 14th Amendment says that non-Christians can
:|simply ignore their legislatures when they say such things anyway.

Gee Fred would you be so kind as to point out exactly where the 14th says
what you say it says above.
Actually what fred does is substitutes law (the courts) with Alan Keyes
What a joke
You really should read the cases and actually set aside your biased
theocratic propaganda and try to understand what is being said and more
importantly why
This is the ruling by the 9th Circuit:
[it is Newdow II that is being appealed. Newdow II replaced Newdow I]
=======================================================
COMMENTS BY THOSE WHO FRAMED THE ACT OF 1954 (LEGISLATIVE INTENT)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.conservatism/msg/1a8f892a6f8858a?output=gplain===========================================================
Your shorter link is: http://makeashorte