| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
27 Dec 2005 05:29:40 AM |
| Object: |
Two Court Decisions Spotlight Conflicting Worldviews |
This guy should be ashamed of himself with the number of historical and
legal factual erroes in his writing.
But that is what propaganda is all about.
Two Court Decisions Spotlight Conflicting Worldviews
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/beam/?adate=12/26/2005
Crosswalk.com - Chesterfield,VA,USA
Dr. Tony Beam
Pastor, Conference speaker, Professor, Talk Show Host, and Columnist
Monday, December 26, 2005
Two Court Decisions Spotlight Conflicting Worldviews
More and more the American court system is shaping the cultural identity of
American society. As the culture war spreads from the halls of academia to
the halls of Congress, Federal judges are becoming more emboldened in their
willingness to step into and attempt to end national debates on
controversial issues.
The most recent examples come from court rooms in Mercer, Kentucky and
Cincinnati, Ohio. The two decisions reflect the two paths that are open to
America in terms of proper interpretation of the United States
Constitution. In Kentucky, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a
courthouse display in Mercer County of the Ten Commandments is
constitutional. The disputed document hangs with other historical documents
including the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and the
Magna Carta. Writing for the majority, Judge Richard Suhrheinrich said, "A
reasonable observer would not view this display as an attempt by Mercer
County to establish religion." Well stop the presses....we finally have a
Federal judge who understands what it means to be reasonable.
But Judge Suhrheinrich didn't stop there. He went on to chastise the ACLU
for presenting flawed logic to try to persuade the court to remove the
documents. Referring to the ACLU's usual arguments Suhrheinrich said, "the
separation of church and state is an extra-constitutional construct that
has grow tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand separation between
church and state...our nation's history is replete with governmental
acknowledgment and in some cases accommodation of religion...thus, state
recognition of religion that falls short of endorsement is constitutionally
permissible."
How astoundingly refreshing it is to hear a federal judge who understands
the intent of the framers of the Constitution. By referring to the phrase
"separation of church and state" as an "extra-constitutional construct"
Judge Suhrheinrich joins a growing group of constitutional defenders who
are willing to unmask the deceptive use of Thomas Jefferson's infamous
"wall of separation" letter as an example of constitutional law. The
United States Constitution does not now and has not ever contained the
phrase "wall of separation between the church and the state." It was
jammed into the Constitution by a majority of liberal judges in 1947 in the
Supreme Court case Everson v. The Board of Education. The decision
reversed 150 years of court precedent and elevated the personal
correspondence of then President Thomas Jefferson to the level of
constitutional law.
Judge Suhrheinrich and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals restores some
sense to the insanity that has recently been the hallmark of the court
system in America. In Lawrence v. Texas the Texas Supreme Court found a
constitutional right to sodemy in the Texas Constitution. In Kelo et al v.
City of New London the United States Supreme Court ignored the Fifth
Amendment and gave its blessing to developers who want to pad their
pocketbooks by "developing" land they "legally" steal from homeowners.
This leads me to the other court case which ironically was decided on the
same day. In Kitzmiller v. Dover School District, U.S. District Judge John
Jones demonstrated a totally different worldview when he chastised
Christians on the Dover School Board for supposedly lying about their
intentions concerning their desire for Intelligent Design to be taught
alongside evolution. Judge Jones said, "The citizens of the Dover area
were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID policy.
It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and
proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again
lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID
policy."
In that statement, Judges Jones revealed his bias by assuming that anyone
who challenges evolution must have a religious agenda hidden in their lunch
box. He could not possibly know the motive of the School Board members was
anything more than their stated motive of giving students in Dover the
whole story when it comes to viable theories of origins. Judge Jones
represents a worldview which assumes anyone who questions Darwinism must be
a religious nut who lies about their motives. There was absolutely no
religious language in the school board science curriculum. Not one
reference to God or to any Supreme Being can be found. The religious
motivation of the Dover School Board existed only in the mind of a biased
Judge who sees evolution as dogma rather than science.
Judge Jones also said in his ruling, "To be sure, Darwin's theory of
evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot
yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to
thrust an un-testable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the
science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific
positions." Is Judge Jones to ignorant to realize the major tenants of
Darwinism are impossible to recreate and are therefore un-testable? Is he
so blinded by his personal bias that he doesn't know evolution has never
been recreated in a laboratory?
Rather than discuss the scientific merits of Intelligent Design, Judge
Jones is perfectly content in his ruling to resort to the name calling of
School Board members. Yet he believes he has the supernatural ability to
read their minds and discern their true motivations.
These two court cases reveal the two worldviews which are currently locked
in desperate battle for cultural dominance. If the Judges Jones' of the
world win the day and their worldview becomes dominant all public
references to religion will be removed. Soon, all private expressions of
religion will follow. If the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision
represents the winning judicial philosophy religious expression will be
respected and protected. Our role in this make or break cultural struggle
for the heart and soul of America is to know what is happening and be
willing to hold pressure our elected leaders to reign in a court system
that is out of control and at the same time applaud pockets of judicial
common sense when they appear.
**************************************************************
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: "Sanitys little helper" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Court Decisions Spotlight Conflicting Worldviews |
27 Dec 2005 06:09:14 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 06:29:40 -0500, wrote:
Rather than discuss the scientific merits of Intelligent Design
He did, and if anything demonstrates supernatural ability, that does,
because ID doesn't have any scientific merits.
ID is an argument from ignorance - comprehensively. Science never ever
synthesises explanations that are not testable - and ID isn't testable. Try
designing a laboratory experiment or a set of measurable observations in
which complex molecules magically appear at the whim of some deity.
ID rests on a hypothesis that there is or was an intelligence external to
reality that synthesised the more complex biological entities because they
could not have happened through the incremental procress of refinement over
how ever many generations there could possibly be. That's a direct appeal
to ignorance and immediately casts into serious doubt the sincerity of
those postulating such a hypothesis. Even leaving aside the obvious strain
on credulity that the idea of an intelligence independedent of any
reasonable definition of existence presents to anybody capable of giving
the issue a fraction of a second's thought.
It's easy to go looking for things science hasn't fully explained because
there is plenty that it hasn't, but to say, therefore, that things can be
more easily explained - and somehow better explained - by entirely
synthetic postulates based entirely on the imagination of the postulator is
simply dishonest.
--
Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow, we eat, drink and be merry.
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
AA #2208
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Court Decisions Spotlight Conflicting Worldviews |
27 Dec 2005 02:03:21 PM |
|
|
"Sanity's little helper" <elvish@noshpam.net> wrote in message
news:1ldscw38qebja$.1o36kqto8hlol.dlg@40tude.net...
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 06:29:40 -0500, wrote:
Rather than discuss the scientific merits of Intelligent Design
He did, and if anything demonstrates supernatural ability, that does,
because ID doesn't have any scientific merits.
Shows how little you know of ID and evolution.
Read what this judge has to say about the religious movement of the secular
humanists.
But Judge Suhrheinrich didn't stop there. He went on to chastise the ACLU
for presenting flawed logic to try to persuade the court to remove the
documents. Referring to the ACLU's usual arguments Suhrheinrich said, "the
separation of church and state is an extra-constitutional construct that
has grow tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand separation between
church and state...our nation's history is replete with governmental
acknowledgment and in some cases accommodation of religion...thus, state
recognition of religion that falls short of endorsement is constitutionally
permissible."
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Court Decisions Spotlight Conflicting Worldviews |
28 Dec 2005 07:23:17 AM |
|
|
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in message
news:11r372lcskm6m38@corp.supernews.com...
"Sanity's little helper" <elvish@noshpam.net> wrote in message
news:1ldscw38qebja$.1o36kqto8hlol.dlg@40tude.net...
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 06:29:40 -0500, wrote:
Rather than discuss the scientific merits of Intelligent Design
He did, and if anything demonstrates supernatural ability, that does,
because ID doesn't have any scientific merits.
Shows how little you know of ID and evolution.
Read what this judge has to say about the religious movement of the
secular
humanists.
Whoa!
You ARE one hell of a dipshit!
Shows how little you know about reality!
But Judge Suhrheinrich didn't stop there. He went on to chastise the ACLU
for presenting flawed logic to try to persuade the court to remove the
documents. Referring to the ACLU's usual arguments Suhrheinrich said, "the
separation of church and state is an extra-constitutional construct that
has grow tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand separation between
church and state...our nation's history is replete with governmental
acknowledgment and in some cases accommodation of religion...thus, state
recognition of religion that falls short of endorsement is
constitutionally
permissible."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Court Decisions Spotlight Conflicting Worldviews |
28 Dec 2005 08:31:21 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 11:03:21 -0900, "Dana"
<whoya@whoya.com> wrote:
"Sanity's little helper" <elvish@noshpam.net> wrote in message
news:1ldscw38qebja$.1o36kqto8hlol.dlg@40tude.net...
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 06:29:40 -0500, wrote:
Rather than discuss the scientific merits of Intelligent Design
He did, and if anything demonstrates supernatural ability, that does,
because ID doesn't have any scientific merits.
Shows how little you know of ID and evolution.
Read what this judge has to say about the religious movement of the secular
humanists.
No, let's read what YOU have to say about sick sex,
BUTTMASTER
=======================================================================
From: ()
Subject: golden/brown showers
Newsgroups: alt.personals.fetish, alt.sex.fetish.watersportsDate: 1997/03/30
swm/34 houston tx. looking for females to use me as an oral slave.
no physical penetration,just use my tongue and mouth for your
satisfaction. will perform toilet service for both golden and brown
showers. will worship feet and *****. trampling and smothering ok
also. cyber or in person. ladies tell me your fantasy,on watersports.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sanitys little helper" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Court Decisions Spotlight Conflicting Worldviews |
27 Dec 2005 04:30:29 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 11:03:21 -0900, Dana wrote:
"Sanity's little helper" <elvish@noshpam.net> wrote in message
news:1ldscw38qebja$.1o36kqto8hlol.dlg@40tude.net...
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 06:29:40 -0500, wrote:
Rather than discuss the scientific merits of Intelligent Design
He did, and if anything demonstrates supernatural ability, that does,
because ID doesn't have any scientific merits.
Shows how little you know of ID and evolution.
That's why you, lying coward theist that you are, snipped the rest of my
substantive post rather than addressing it. I actually carefully explained
why ID has no scientific merits.
I repeat:
ID is an argument from ignorance - comprehensively. Science never ever
synthesises explanations that are not testable - and ID isn't testable. Try
designing a laboratory experiment or a set of measurable observations in
which complex molecules magically appear at the whim of some deity.
ID rests on a hypothesis that there is or was an intelligence external to
reality that synthesised the more complex biological entities because they
could not have happened through the incremental procress of refinement over
how ever many generations there could possibly be. That's a direct appeal
to ignorance and immediately casts into serious doubt the sincerity of
those postulating such a hypothesis. Even leaving aside the obvious strain
on credulity that the idea of an intelligence independedent of any
reasonable definition of existence presents to anybody capable of giving
the issue a fraction of a second's thought.
It's easy to go looking for things science hasn't fully explained because
there is plenty that it hasn't, but to say, therefore, that things can be
more easily explained - and somehow better explained - by entirely
synthetic postulates based entirely on the imagination of the postulator is
simply dishonest.
--
Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow, we eat, drink and be merry.
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
AA #2208
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Court Decisions Spotlight Conflicting Worldviews |
27 Dec 2005 04:49:32 PM |
|
|
"Sanity's little helper" <elvish@noshpam.net> wrote in message
news:1jn5tw507go7w$.mk4vv2vwertm$.dlg@40tude.net...
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 11:03:21 -0900, Dana wrote:
"Sanity's little helper" <elvish@noshpam.net> wrote in message
news:1ldscw38qebja$.1o36kqto8hlol.dlg@40tude.net...
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 06:29:40 -0500, wrote:
Rather than discuss the scientific merits of Intelligent Design
He did, and if anything demonstrates supernatural ability, that does,
because ID doesn't have any scientific merits.
Shows how little you know of ID and evolution.
I repeat:
And you are still ignorant of ID and evolution
Shows how little you know of ID and evolution.
Read what this judge has to say about the religious movement of the secular
humanists.
But Judge Suhrheinrich didn't stop there. He went on to chastise the ACLU
for presenting flawed logic to try to persuade the court to remove the
documents. Referring to the ACLU's usual arguments Suhrheinrich said, "the
separation of church and state is an extra-constitutional construct that
has grow tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand separation between
church and state...our nation's history is replete with governmental
acknowledgment and in some cases accommodation of religion...thus, state
recognition of religion that falls short of endorsement is constitutionally
permissible."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanitys little helper" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Court Decisions Spotlight Conflicting Worldviews |
27 Dec 2005 05:30:15 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 13:49:32 -0900, Dana wrote:
"Sanity's little helper" <elvish@noshpam.net> wrote in message
news:1jn5tw507go7w$.mk4vv2vwertm$.dlg@40tude.net...
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 11:03:21 -0900, Dana wrote:
"Sanity's little helper" <elvish@noshpam.net> wrote in message
news:1ldscw38qebja$.1o36kqto8hlol.dlg@40tude.net...
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 06:29:40 -0500, wrote:
Rather than discuss the scientific merits of Intelligent Design
He did, and if anything demonstrates supernatural ability, that does,
because ID doesn't have any scientific merits.
Shows how little you know of ID and evolution.
I repeat:
And you are still ignorant of ID and evolution
Shows how little you know of ID and evolution.
Read what this judge has to say about the religious movement of the secular
humanists.
But Judge Suhrheinrich didn't stop there. He went on to chastise the ACLU
for presenting flawed logic to try to persuade the court to remove the
documents. Referring to the ACLU's usual arguments Suhrheinrich said, "the
separation of church and state is an extra-constitutional construct that
has grow tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand separation between
church and state...our nation's history is replete with governmental
acknowledgment and in some cases accommodation of religion...thus, state
recognition of religion that falls short of endorsement is constitutionally
permissible."
And..?
--
Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow, we eat, drink and be merry.
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
AA #2208
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Court Decisions Spotlight Conflicting Worldviews |
01 Jan 2006 04:37:02 AM |
|
|
Sanity's little helper <elvish@noshpam.net> wrote:
:|On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 06:29:40 -0500, wrote:
:|
:|> Rather than discuss the scientific merits of Intelligent Design
:|
:|He did, and if anything demonstrates supernatural ability, that does,
:|because ID doesn't have any scientific merits.
You do realize, I hope, that this is the fella you should be addressing
your comments to
Two Court Decisions Spotlight Conflicting Worldviews
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/beam/?adate=12/26/2005
Crosswalk.com - Chesterfield,VA,USA
Dr. Tony Beam
Pastor, Conference speaker, Professor, Talk Show Host, and Columnist
Monday, December 26, 2005
if you are going to write them as if you are talking directly to the
person who originally said it
:|
:|ID is an argument from ignorance - comprehensively. Science never ever
:|synthesises explanations that are not testable - and ID isn't testable. Try
:|designing a laboratory experiment or a set of measurable observations in
:|which complex molecules magically appear at the whim of some deity.
:|
:|ID rests on a hypothesis that there is or was an intelligence external to
:|reality that synthesised the more complex biological entities because they
:|could not have happened through the incremental procress of refinement over
:|how ever many generations there could possibly be. That's a direct appeal
:|to ignorance and immediately casts into serious doubt the sincerity of
:|those postulating such a hypothesis. Even leaving aside the obvious strain
:|on credulity that the idea of an intelligence independedent of any
:|reasonable definition of existence presents to anybody capable of giving
:|the issue a fraction of a second's thought.
:|
:|It's easy to go looking for things science hasn't fully explained because
:|there is plenty that it hasn't, but to say, therefore, that things can be
:|more easily explained - and somehow better explained - by entirely
:|synthetic postulates based entirely on the imagination of the postulator is
:|simply dishonest.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "classicliberal2" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Court Decisions Spotlight Conflicting Worldviews |
27 Dec 2005 11:56:11 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 06:29:40 -0500, wrote:
This guy should be ashamed of himself with the number of
historical and legal factual erroes in his writing.
Yeah, that was particularly bad, even considering the
source. While excoriating John Jones, he demonstrated the
very point Jones was making about people of his political
persuasion. That he did so in an article attacking that point
is rather amusing.
But that is what propaganda is all about.
"Propaganda" isn't a strong enough word. Propaganda,
after all, can also be true. What Beam was doing is best
labeled "lying." He is a liar of the first order, his paycheck
making him, in fact, a professional liar.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Court Decisions Spotlight Conflicting Worldviews |
27 Dec 2005 02:04:06 PM |
|
|
--
The fundamental principle of our Constitution . . . enjoins [requires] that
the will of the majority shall prevail.
George Washington
--------------------------------------------------------------
The will of the majority [is] the natural law of every society [and] is the
only sure guardian of the rights of man. Perhaps even this may sometimes
err. But its errors are honest, solitary and short-lived
Though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be
rightful must be reasonable - the minority possess their equal rights which
equal law must protect
Thomas Jefferson
"classicliberal2" <classicliberal2@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:89v2r1hm4mcspiukuv9rotdf8jc93crsl0@4ax.com...
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 06:29:40 -0500, wrote:
This guy should be ashamed of himself with the number of
historical and legal factual erroes in his writing.
Yeah, that was particularly bad, even considering the
source. While excoriating John Jones, he demonstrated the
very point Jones was making about people of his political
persuasion. That he did so in an article attacking that point
is rather amusing.
Read it and weep
But Judge Suhrheinrich didn't stop there. He went on to chastise the ACLU
for presenting flawed logic to try to persuade the court to remove the
documents. Referring to the ACLU's usual arguments Suhrheinrich said, "the
separation of church and state is an extra-constitutional construct that
has grow tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand separation between
church and state...our nation's history is replete with governmental
acknowledgment and in some cases accommodation of religion...thus, state
recognition of religion that falls short of endorsement is constitutionally
permissible."
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Court Decisions Spotlight Conflicting Worldviews |
29 Dec 2005 01:03:33 PM |
|
|
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote:
The fundamental principle of our Constitution . . . enjoins [requires] that
the will of the majority shall prevail.
George Washington
Improperly cited quotes are to be considered as bogus until someone can
provide a complete and proper cite
--------------------------------------------------------------
The will of the majority [is] the natural law of every society [and] is the
only sure guardian of the rights of man. Perhaps even this may sometimes
err. But its errors are honest, solitary and short-lived
Though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be
rightful must be reasonable - the minority possess their equal rights which
equal law must protect
Thomas Jefferson
Improperly cited quotes are to be considered as bogus until someone can
provide a complete and proper cite
Read it and weep
But Judge Suhrheinrich didn't stop there. He went on to chastise the ACLU
for presenting flawed logic to try to persuade the court to remove the
documents. Referring to the ACLU's usual arguments Suhrheinrich said, "the
separation of church and state is an extra-constitutional construct that
has grow tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand separation between
church and state...our nation's history is replete with governmental
acknowledgment and in some cases accommodation of religion...thus, state
recognition of religion that falls short of endorsement is constitutionally
permissible."
The weeping belongs to you
HISTORY
Two views have been expressed regarding the interpretation of the
history surrounding the establishment clause. One view is that the word
"establishment" should be interpreted narrowly. Proponents of this view
contend that the establishment clause only prohibts only Congress, not the
states from establishing a religion. R. Cord, Separation of Church and
State: Historical Fact and Current Fiction (1982) ; J.McCellan, The Making
and Unmaking of the Establishment Clause, A Blueprint for Judicial Reform.
(P. McGuigan and R. Rader eds. n.d. 1981); E. Corwin, The Supreme Court as
a National School Board, 14 Law and Contemporary Problems. 3 (1949)
A second view results in a much broader interpretation of the
establishment clause. Proponents of this view contend that the
establishment clause prohibits any governmental support of religion on the
state or federal level. L. Levy, Judgments: Essays on American
Constitutional History (1972); L Pfeffer, Church, State, and Freedom, (rev.
ed. 1967); R. Dixon, Religion, Schools and the Open Society, 13 Journal of
Public Law 267, 278 (1964); Katz, Freedom of Religion and State Neutrality,
20 U.Chi.L. Rev. 426, 438 (1953). The Supreme Court has supported the
broader view. See Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 82 S.Ct. 1261, 8 L.Ed.2d
601 (1962); Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 67 S.Ct. 504, 91
L.Ed. 711 (1946); H. Chase & C. Ducat, Constitutional Interpretation,
Cases-Essays-Materials, 1384 (2ded. 1979).
The appellees argue that historically the first amendment to the
United States Constitution was intended only to prohibit the federal
government from establishing a national religion! Appellees, additionally,
argue that historical evidence does not support the fourteenth amendment's
incorporation of the first amendment. The appellee and the district court
rely heavily on the research of historians. These historians believe the
Supreme Court misread the history surrounding the establishment clause.
They submit that the establishment clause has a dual purpose (1) to
guarantee the people of this country that the federal government will not
impose a national religion, and (2) to guarantee states the right to define
the meaning of religious establishment under their state constitutions and
laws.
The Supreme Court, however, has carefully considered these
arguments and rejected them. See, e.g., School District of Abington
Township v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S.Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d 844 (1963);
Engel, 370 U.S. 421, 82 S.Ct. 1261, 8 L.Ed.2d 601 (1962); McGowan v.
Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 81 S.Ct. 1101, 6 L.Ed.2d 393 (1961); McCollum v.
Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203, 68 S.Ct. 461, 92 L.Ed. 649 (1948);
Everson, 330 U.S. 1, 67 S.Ct. 504, 91 L.Ed. 711 (1946). In Everson, the
Court presented its careful review of the history surrounding the
establishment clause. Justice Black wrote:
The "establishment of religion" clause
of the First Amendment means at least
this: Neither a state nor the Federal
Government can set up a church. Nei-
ther can pass laws which aid one religion,
aid all religions, or prefer one religion
over another.... In the words of Jef-
ferson, the clause against establishment
of religion by law was intended to erect
"a wall of separation between church
and state."
Everson, 330 U.S. at15-16, 67 S.Ct. 511-512. Justice Rutledge, while
dissenting on other grounds in Eversin, observed that:
1531
Not simply an established church,
but any law respecting an establishment of
religion is forbidden. The Amendment
was broadly but not loosely phrased....
The Amendment's purpose was not to
strike merely at the official establishment
of a single sect, creed or religion, outlaw-
ing only a formal relation such as had
prevailed in England and some of the
colonies. Necessarily it was to uproot all
such relationships. But the object was
broader than separating church and state
in this narrow sense. It was to create a
complete and permanent separation of
the spheres of religious activity and civil
authority by comprehensively forbidding
every form of public aid or support for
religion.
"Religion" appears only once in the
Amendment. But the word governs two
prohibitions and governs them alike. It
does not have two meanings, one narrow
to forbid "an establishment" and another,
much broader, for securing "the free ex-
ercise thereof." "Thereof" brings down
"religion" with its entire and exact con-
tent, no more and no less, from the first
into the second guaranty, so that Con-
gress and now the states are as broadly
restricted concerning the one as they are
regarding the other.
Everson, 330 U.S. at 31-32, 67 S.Ct. at 519. Justice Jackson, while
dissenting on other grounds, also noted that:
There is no answer to the proposition .. .
that the effect of the religious freedom
Amendment to our Constitution was to
take every form of propagation of reli-
gion out of the realm of things which
could ... be made public business ....
This [religious] freedom was first in
the Bill of Rights because it was first in
the forefathers' minds; it was set forth in
absolute terms, and its strength is its
rigidity.
Everson, 330 U.S. at 26, 67 S.Ct. at 516. Although differing on the outcome
of the case, all Justices perceived the history of the establishment clause
as prohibiting any government involvement with religion. This unanimity
also existed regarding the history of the first amendment's applicability
to the states through the fourteenth amendment.
Jaffree v Wallace 705 F2d. 1526 (1963)
***********************************************************************************
DECEMBER 20, 2005
-------------------------------------------------------
U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals
-------------------------------------------------------
Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Mercer County (12/20/05 - No. 03-5142)
Summary judgment in favor of county defendant in a First Amendment
Establishment Clause challenge to its courthouse display containing the Ten
Commandments is affirmed where the predominant purpose of the display is
secular and the display does not endorse religion.
To read the full text of this opinion, go to:[PDF File]
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/6th/035142p.pdf"
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/6th/035142p.pdf [PDF File]
(1) I have a copy of the case. I downloaded and printed out said case. I
have read over the case.
(2) This was a usual 3 judge panel of the 6th Circuit Court.
SUHRHEINRICH, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which BATCHELDER,
J., joined. RICE, D. J., concurred in the result only.
The above is very important since it says that only J. SUHRHEINRICH
..(Actually more than likely his clerk or clerks) wrote that section that
you are flaunting around. The other two judges only agreed to this, the
actual holding of the case:
the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
The other two judges did not agree with this
For the foregoing reasons,
only this
the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
(3) Legally speaking the only thing that is legally binding or legally
important is this the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
That other stuff, the so called rationale is dicta.
It can be used in arguments in other cases can even be quoted by other
courts in their rationale for a given opinion but it isn't law. It isn't
legally binding on anyone for anything. It wasn't and isn't the holding of
the case.
{4} We are talking about a legal principle, do you happen to have any idea
what a legal principle is?
A legal principle has all the characteristics of a rule of law (an
authoritative legal standard of general application requiring action or
forbearance used by courts and administrative tribunals as a norm in
deciding the legal significance of the particular facts presented in
individual cases), and, in addition, a principle: has a more fundamental
status in law then a rule, has a broader or more inclusive scope of reach
than a rule, may be used as a basis for creating rules and is sometimes
used by a judge to select which one of the two or more arguably applicable
rules should be applied in a particular case.
In out system of law, SOME fundamental principles are explicitly specified
in the Constitution of the United States, including:
The principle of due process
the principle of equal protection of the law
the principles of freedom of speech, press, assembly,
Other federal constitutional principles are derived from those which are
explicitly specified, etc
Other federal constitutional principles are derived from those which are
explicitly specified and then embodied in the case law of the U.S. Supreme
Court, including:
-- the principle that each person has a right of privacy, derived from the
first, fourth and other amendments
-- the principle that vague criminal statutes are a violation of due
process
Learning Legal Reasoning, Briefing, Analysis and Theory, Professor John
Delany, 9th Printing John Delany Publications, (August 1993) p 8-9
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Such things as Freedom of religion or religious freedom i. e. separation of
church and state, separation of powers, checks and balances are examples of
legal principles that were embodied in the U S Constitution. when it was
framed.
(5) J, SUHRHEINRICH or his clerk(s) or both don't know history very well.
They are playing semantic games and they really should know better.
Absolutes are seldom but I will make a somewhat absolute statement right
here and right now
There is no respected historian, no respected attorney, no respected judge,
Justice law school professor or scholar who can refute the following
Study Guide: Separation of Church and State - Indepth
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd0.htm
The Establishment Clause
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/estclause.htm
and demonstrate with factual evidence that the legal principle or concept
of church state separation is not embodied in the original constitution and
further reinforced with the religious clauses of the BORs
What the above demonstrates is a valid accurate and pretty much unbroken
pedigree of recognition, acknowledgement and in some cases application of
the principle of church state from the Constitutional convention in
Philly to Everson v Bd of ed in 1947.
*****************************************************************
(6) There was a scholar who published the following book
Philip Hamburger. Separation of Church and State. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 2002. 492 pages. Notes, index. $45.00
(cloth), ISBN 0-674-00734-4.
Separation of Church and State
Philip Hamburger
Separation of Church and State jacket
In a powerful challenge to conventional wisdom, Philip Hamburger argues
that the separation of church and state has no historical foundation in the
First Amendment. The detailed evidence assembled here shows that
eighteenth-century Americans almost never invoked this principle. Although
Thomas Jefferson and others retrospectively claimed that the First
Amendment separated church and state, separation became part of American
constitutional law only much later.
----------------------------------------------------
Here are some comments about this book, one from me and another from
professor Marci Hamilton as well as a couple others
[excerpt from Professir Hamilton]
* Was Church/state Separation Part of the Original Constitution?: A
Review of Philip Hamburger's Provocative Recent Book on Separation's
History
Friday, Sep. 20, 2002
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/books/reviews/20020920_hamilton.html
An important point made in her article:
The Book's Value, and How It Might - and Should Not - Be Misused
[snip]
Hamburger's book also (but inadvertently) opens another, more
dangerous door. This is a scholarly book, and Professor Hamburger has
no apparent political agenda. But my fear is that those who are
hostile to the Establishment Clause will embrace the book for all the
wrong reasons - despite the fact that, on a fair reading, the book
simply does not support their view.
There are potent forces, currently dominant
[not so dominant. This is one area I strongly disagree with her on
buckeyeelo]
in this society, that would virtually unite church and state - by
increasing government financial support for religious institution, and
increasing religions' control of legislative agendas through lobbying
and political contributions. They may see this book as a handy tool.
Separation, they will argue, was not part of the original
Constitution, so there is no reason to honor it today; as long as
there is no formal state Church and no blatant religious persecution,
they may suggest, the U.S. is in full compliance with the
Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses. After all, they may point
out, there is no Separation Clause. Separation is only Thomas
Jefferson's metaphor, not the Constitution's.
The list of issues for those with the anti-separation agenda seems to
grow every day. Think of the numerous examples: state-funded vouchers
for private schools, "charitable choice," the Religious Freedom
Restoration Acts at both the federal and state level, the Religious
Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, Medicare funding
provisions that cover faith-healing, states' exemptions from parental
child neglect laws when medical care is withheld for religious
reasons, the too-short statutes of limitation governing child abuse by
clergy, and the endless list of government-financed school supplies
provided to religious schools. The list, sadly, could go on.
[snip]
This is an important book, but not an ideological one. If it is
appropriated for ideological purposes, that will be a great shame.
*******************************************************************************
[from me]
I don't know of anyone, at least not anyone of the three people I posted
excerpts from (Marci Hamilton, Douglas Laycock, Mark D. McGarvie) who
said Philip Hamburger had an agenda, nor that his book wasn't a important
book to be read by any and all.
However, his direction, his conclusions didn't tell the entire story
and accidently at least supported the Radical Religious right in their
claims that separation of church and state is a myth.
Hamburger claims that the 1st Amendment didn't create church state
separation. Actually, on that I agree with him. Church state
separation, the principle, was embodied in the unamended constitution.
To be more precise, Article IV end of third paragraph, directly. This
is the separation clause and then indirectly the entire unamended
constitution.
What the Religious clauses of the 3rd Amendment (today's 1st
Amendment) did was reinforce that which had been accomplished with
unamended constitution, which was to break the union between church
and state, religion and government.
**************************************************************************
There are two additional reviews to that book
Philip Hamburger. Separation of Church and State. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 2002. 492 pages. Notes, index. $45.00
(cloth), ISBN 0-674-00734-4.
Reviewed by: Mark D. McGarvie , Adjunct Professor of History,
University of Richmond, and Golieb Fellow in Legal History, New York
University School of Law, 2001-2002.
Published by: H-Law (March, 2003)
Was the Constitution Rewritten by Anti-Catholics? A New Approach to
the Church-State Controversy
http://www.h-net.msu.edu/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=180081052130058
******************************************************************************
The Many Mesages of Separation, Douglas Laycock, Separation of Church
and State, Phillip Hamburger The U of Chicago Law Review Vplume 70,
Fall 2003, #4 pp 1667-1701
(Yes I have the above Law Review article as well. I scanned an excerpt from
it)
**************************************************************
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: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Court Decisions Spotlight Conflicting Worldviews |
29 Dec 2005 04:32:32 PM |
|
|
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:6lc8r199vb0tsgh3infht6i2h5tvuau0a4@4ax.com...
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote:
The fundamental principle of our Constitution . . . enjoins [requires]
that
the will of the majority shall prevail.
George Washington
Improperly cited quotes
Is all you post.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Court Decisions Spotlight Conflicting Worldviews |
31 Dec 2005 07:45:01 AM |
|
|
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote:
:|<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
:|news:6lc8r199vb0tsgh3infht6i2h5tvuau0a4@4ax.com...
:|> "Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote:
:|>
:|> >The fundamental principle of our Constitution . . . enjoins [requires]
:|that
:|> >the will of the majority shall prevail.
:|> >George Washington
:|>
:|> Improperly cited quotes
:|
:|Is all you post.
That's your best shot isn't it stupid, the best you can do LOL
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "classicliberal2" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Court Decisions Spotlight Conflicting Worldviews |
27 Dec 2005 08:40:04 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 11:04:06 -0900, "Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote:
Inbred mutant Suhrheinrich: "[T]he separation of church
and state is an extra-constitutional construct that has
grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand
separation between church and state"
Jefferson: "Believing with you that religion is a matter
which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes
to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative
powers of government reach actions only, and not
opinions, I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of
the whole American people which declared that their
legislature should 'make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between
Church and State."
So much for inbred mutant "judges."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Court Decisions Spotlight Conflicting Worldviews |
27 Dec 2005 09:34:52 PM |
|
|
"classicliberal2" <classicliberal2@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:dhu3r15f1h6p9mlfvd07k2ll1nq225ihas@4ax.com...
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 11:04:06 -0900, "Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote:
Inbred mutant Suhrheinrich: "[T]he separation of church
and state is an extra-constitutional construct that has
grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand
separation between church and state"
Jefferson:
You do know that Jefferson had no problems with the federal government
endorsing religion. Jefferson only opposed a state mandated religion.
So another leftist is shown to be ignorant of our history.
.
|
|
|
| User: "classicliberal2" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Court Decisions Spotlight Conflicting Worldviews |
27 Dec 2005 11:18:04 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 18:34:52 -0900, "Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote:
Inbred mutant Suhrheinrich: "[T]he separation of church
and state is an extra-constitutional construct that has
grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand
separation between church and state"
Jefferson: "Believing with you that religion is a matter
which lies solely between man and his God, that he
owes to none other for his faith or his worship, that the
legislative powers of government reach actions only,
and not opinions, I contemplate with solemn reverence
that act of the whole American people which declared
that their legislature should 'make no law respecting
an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation
between Church and State."
You do know that Jefferson had no problems with the
federal government endorsing religion.
To the contrary, I know Jefferson had a major problem with
that, and can go on about it at some length if called to do
so by uneducated reactionaries.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Court Decisions Spotlight Conflicting Worldviews |
28 Dec 2005 12:35:07 PM |
|
|
classicliberal2 wrote:
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 18:34:52 -0900, "Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote:
Inbred mutant Suhrheinrich: "[T]he separation of church
and state is an extra-constitutional construct that has
grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand
separation between church and state"
Jefferson: "Believing with you that religion is a matter
which lies solely between man and his God, that he
owes to none other for his faith or his worship, that the
legislative powers of government reach actions only,
and not opinions, I contemplate with solemn reverence
that act of the whole American people which declared
that their legislature should 'make no law respecting
an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation
between Church and State."
You do know that Jefferson had no problems with the
federal government endorsing religion.
To the contrary, I know Jefferson had a major problem with
that, and can go on about it at some length if called to do
so by uneducated reactionaries.
http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl183.htm
To Rev. Samuel Miller Washington, Jan. 23, 1808
SIR,
I have duly received your favor of the 18th and
am thankful to you for having written it, because
it is more agreeable to prevent than to refuse
what I do not think myself authorized to comply
with. I consider the government of the U S. as
interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling
with religious institutions, their doctrines,
discipline, or exercises. This results not only
from the provision that no lawshall be made
respecting the establishment, or free exercise, of
religion, but from that also which reserves to the
states the powers not delegated to the U.S.
Certainly no power to prescribe any religious
exercise, or to assume authority in religious
discipline, has been delegated to the general
government. It must then rest with the states, as
far as it can be in any human authority. But it is
only proposed that I should recommend, not
prescribe a day of fasting & prayer. That is, that
I should indirectly assume to the U.S. an
authority over religious exercises which the
Constitution has directly precluded them from. It
must be meant too that this recommendation is to
carry some authority, and to be sanctioned by some
penalty on those who disregard it; not indeed of
fine and imprisonment, but of some degree of
proscription perhaps in public opinion. And does
the change in the nature of the penalty make the
recommendation the less a law of conduct for those
to whom it is directed? I do not believe it is for
the interest of religion to invite the civil
magistrate to direct it's exercises, it's
discipline, or it's doctrines; nor of the
religious societies that the general government
should be invested with the power of effecting any
uniformity of time or matter among them. Fasting &
prayer are religious exercises. The enjoining them
an act of discipline. Every religious society has
a right to determine for itself the times for
these exercises, & the objects proper for them,
according to their own particular tenets; and this
right can never be safer than in their own hands,
where the constitution has deposited it.
I am aware that the practice of my predecessors
may be quoted. But I have ever believed that the
example of state executives led to the assumption
of that authority by the general government,
without due examination, which would have
discovered that what might be a right in a state
government, was a violation of that right when
assumed by another. Be this as it may, every one
must act according to the dictates of his own
reason, & mine tells me that civil powers alone
have been given to the President of the U S. and
no authority to direct the religious exercises of
his constituents.
I again express my satisfaction that you have been
so good as to give me an opportunity of explaining
myself in a private letter, in which I could give
my reasons more in detail than might have been
done in a public answer: and I pray you to accept
the assurances of my high esteem & respect.
--
Happy Hogmanay!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mickey" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Court Decisions Spotlight Conflicting Worldviews |
27 Dec 2005 09:53:07 PM |
|
|
classicliberal2 wrote:
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 11:04:06 -0900, "Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote:
Inbred mutant Suhrheinrich: "[T]he separation of church
and state is an extra-constitutional construct that has
grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand
separation between church and state"
Jefferson: "Believing with you that religion is a matter
which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes
to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative
powers of government reach actions only, and not
opinions, I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of
the whole American people which declared that their
legislature should 'make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between
Church and State."
So much for inbred mutant "judges."
Is this the same Jefferson who was in France when the 1st Amendment was
drafted and whose writings we are frequently reminded by "Knickkkers"
have no legal significance?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Court Decisions Spotlight Conflicting Worldviews |
27 Dec 2005 10:06:29 PM |
|
|
"Mickey" <mickey_and_edith@nomorephishsbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:D_nsf.39434$7h7.3821@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
classicliberal2 wrote:
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 11:04:06 -0900, "Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote:
Inbred mutant Suhrheinrich: "[T]he separation of church
and state is an extra-constitutional construct that has
grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand
separation between church and state"
Jefferson: "Believing with you that religion is a matter
which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes
to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative
powers of government reach actions only, and not
opinions, I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of
the whole American people which declared that their
legislature should 'make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between
Church and State."
So much for inbred mutant "judges."
Is this the same Jefferson who was in France when the 1st Amendment was
drafted and whose writings we are frequently reminded by "Knickkkers"
have no legal significance?
One and the same. And notice how the socialist leftist called
classicalliberal takes Jefferson out of context.
.
|
|
|
| User: "classicliberal2" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Court Decisions Spotlight Conflicting Worldviews |
27 Dec 2005 11:50:16 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 19:06:29 -0900, "Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote:
Inbred mutant Suhrheinrich: "[T]he separation of church
and state is an extra-constitutional construct that has
grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand
separation between church and state"
Jefferson: "Believing with you that religion is a matter
which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes
to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative
powers of government reach actions only, and not
opinions, I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of
the whole American people which declared that their
legislature should 'make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between
Church and State."
So much for inbred mutant "judges."
Is this the same Jefferson who was in France when the
1st Amendment was drafted and whose writings we are
frequently reminded by "Knickkkers" have no legal
significance?
One and the same. And notice how the socialist leftist
called classicalliberal takes Jefferson out of context.
To the contrary, I quoted the entire relevant sentence, and
can quote further if necessary. If you believe that to be
out of context, explain how right here:
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Court Decisions Spotlight Conflicting Worldviews |
29 Dec 2005 02:58:59 PM |
|
|
Mickey <mickey_and_edith@nomorephishsbcglobal.net> wrote:
:|Is this the same Jefferson who was in France when the 1st Amendment was
:|drafted and whose writings we are frequently reminded by "Knickkkers"
:|have no legal significance?
Jefferson didn't separate church and state in Virginia or on the national
level
***************************************************************
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: "classicliberal2" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Court Decisions Spotlight Conflicting Worldviews |
27 Dec 2005 11:47:58 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 03:53:07 GMT, Mickey
<mickey_and_edith@nomorephishsbcglobal.net> wrote:
Inbred mutant Suhrheinrich: "[T]he separation of church
and state is an extra-constitutional construct that has
grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand
separation between church and state"
Jefferson: "Believing with you that religion is a matter
which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes
to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative
powers of government reach actions only, and not
opinions, I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of
the whole American people which declared that their
legislature should 'make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between
Church and State."
So much for inbred mutant "judges."
Is this the same Jefferson who was in France when the
1st Amendment was drafted
It's the Jefferson who, from Paris, lobbied for a Bill of Rights
and successfully changed Madison's mind about the need
for one--he even suggested the rights to be secured by
any such proposal, suggestions which Madison mostly
adopted.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Court Decisions Spotlight Conflicting Worldviews |
29 Dec 2005 02:59:09 PM |
|
|
classicliberal2 <classicliberal2@operamail.com> wrote:
:|It's the Jefferson who, from Paris, lobbied for a Bill of Rights
:|and successfully changed Madison's mind about the need
:|for one--he even suggested the rights to be secured by
:|any such proposal, suggestions which Madison mostly
:|adopted.
While Jeffersin did, in fact write Madison one letter that I am aware of
where he talkes of a need for a BORs, I doubt that any respected scholar
would say it was Jefferson who chaged Madison;s mind
Madison was a politician, perhaps the first pure politician in American
History. he chaged his mind for political reasons, and there were a nukber
of factors besdes Jefferson that brought this about.
While history is a little sow to acknowlwdge the fact, church state
separation is Madion's child far more so than Jefferson's
***************************************************************
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: "Mickey" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Court Decisions Spotlight Conflicting Worldviews |
28 Dec 2005 12:55:01 AM |
|
|
classicliberal2 wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 03:53:07 GMT, Mickey
<mickey_and_edith@nomorephishsbcglobal.net> wrote:
Inbred mutant Suhrheinrich: "[T]he separation of church
and state is an extra-constitutional construct that has
grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand
separation between church and state"
Jefferson: "Believing with you that religion is a matter
which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes
to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative
powers of government reach actions only, and not
opinions, I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of
the whole American people which declared that their
legislature should 'make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between
Church and State."
So much for inbred mutant "judges."
Is this the same Jefferson who was in France when the
1st Amendment was drafted
It's the Jefferson who, from Paris, lobbied for a Bill of Rights
and successfully changed Madison's mind about the need
for one--he even suggested the rights to be secured by
any such proposal, suggestions which Madison mostly
adopted.
It was not Madison's language for the !st amendment that was adopted.
FYI, the language Madison proposed much more clearly stated that the
amendment was intended to keep congress from establishing a state
religion, i.e., it was much narrower than the present reading of the
amendment. It should also be noted that the language Madison proposed
was also narrower in scope than the statute for religious freedom he
helped Jefferson enact in 1779. One might presume that Madison, the
consumate deal maker, understood what could be ratified and what was
likely to fail.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Court Decisions Spotlight Conflicting Worldviews |
29 Dec 2005 01:34:43 PM |
|
|
Mickey <mickey_and_edith@nomorephishsbcglobal.net> wrote:
:|It was not Madison's language for the !st amendment that was adopted.
:|FYI, the language Madison proposed much more clearly stated that the
:|amendment was intended to keep congress from establishing a state
:|religion, i.e., it was much narrower than the present reading of the
:|amendment. It should also be noted that the language Madison proposed
:|was also narrower in scope than the statute for religious freedom he
:|helped Jefferson enact in 1779. One might presume that Madison, the
:|consumate deal maker, understood what could be ratified and what was
:|likely to fail.
To set the record straight church state separation os Madison's child, both
in Virginia and on the national level.
He was responsible for the Virginia Declaration of rights requiring freedom
of Religion rather than mere toleration of dissenters. He was responsible
for the defeat of the Henry's supported Bill for the support of teachers of
the Christian religion and the passage into law of jefferson's statute for
religious freedom.
He was present and supported the introduction and passage of the ban on
religious oaths the actual separation clause of the Constitution
He introduced the religious articles to the house of Rep, sat on, in fact,
IIRC headed up every committee that dealt with those religious clauses
through out the working through the House and finally their presentation
to the Senate. Headed up the House side of the Joint Senate/House
Committee that actually decided that wording od the religious clauses of
the BORs.
As President through a series of 3 vetoes he gave their first official
definitions of same thus establishing guidelines for the future.
He is the only one of the 6 members of the Joint Senate/House committee who
ever wrote anything that gave any guidelines as to their meanings and he
did that in several writings probably the most important being his
Detached Memoranda
Madison had and has a major bearing on all forms of church state
jurisprudence (Over 100 state and federal court cases)
The vast majority, perhaps all court opinions in the realm of church state,
especially establishment clause cases fall under either 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
Religious assessments no matter what name you want to give them no matter
what form they take are accommodations of religion (Story)
Opposition to such, such as Everson's NO AID TO Religion is strict
separation (Madison)
See
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=old++argument+james+Madison+Joseph+...
http://makeashorterlink.com/?B2B612DD8
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:
ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE: [This is based on Madison's view]
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.
Everson v. Bd of Ed, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&...
******************************************************************
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.
SEE BELOW
" 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
***********************************************************
Among the evidence of nonpreferentiaists have warped to prove that
Madison "took the word establishment to meet only a government religion
such as a state church"32 is Madison's statement at the Virginia ratifying
convention 1788: "Fortunately for this commonwealth, a majority of people
are decidedly against any exclusive establishment--I believe it to be so in
other states. There is not a shadow of a right in the general government to
intermeddle with religion. . . . The United States abound in a variety of
sects, that it is a strong security against religious persecution, and it
is sufficient to authorize a conclusion that no one sect will ever
outnumber or depress the rest."33 That a nonpreferentialist would italicize
the second sentence as a revealing aid to his thesis passes belief. Those
words prove the Madison opposed all government support of religion, because
government has no power to legislate on the subject. But we're told Madison
simply opposed raising one religion above the others.34
32. Cord, Separation of Church and State, p. 10
33. Elliot, ed., Debates, 3 :330, as quoted in Cord, Separation of
Church and State, p. 8; Cord's emphasis.
34. Cord, Separation of Church and State, p. 8
Source of Information: The Establishment Clause, Religion and the First
Amendment, Leonard W. Levy, Second Edition, Revised, The University of
North Carolina Press, (1994) pp. 124-25.
**********************************************************
My reply to another in the same subject
Jefferson didn't create church state separation:
The principle of church state separation was embodied in the unamended
constitution long before Jefferson wrote a word to the Danbury Baptist
Assoc.
Study Guide: Separation of Church and State - Indepth
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd0.htm
Everson v. Bd of Ed defined the Establishment Clasue.
Here are the footnotes that the court used to pen the definition:
FOOTNOTES TO EVERSON v. BD OF ED.
http://snurl.com/2pro
:|James Madison is not the sole author the 1st Amendment as many people
:|evidently want us to believe. His initial submission of the 1st
:|Amendment was later modified by the House.
How comical.
You want us to believe that Jefferson played a far bigger role while trying
to tell us Madison played a far smaller role.
Won't fly
Madison isn't called father of the Constitution AND father of the BORs for
nothing.
The Legislative History of the Establishment Clause:
Congressional Debates: Religious Amendments, 1789
From The House of Representatives
"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious
beliefs, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full
and equal rights of conscience in any manner or in any respect be
infringed."
(Civil rights, establishment, rights of conscience, broad word
establishment used )
Not accepted
"No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of
conscience be infringed."
(Establishment and conscience, broad word establishment used)
Not accepted
"Congress shall make no laws touching religion , or infringing the
rights of conscience."
(Establishment and conscience, broad word establishment used)
Not accepted
"Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the
free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience."
(Establishment, free exercise, conscience, broad word establishment
used)
Not accepted
Submitted to the Senate:
"Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of conscience be infringed."
(Establishment, free exercise, conscience, broad word establishment
used)
Not accepted
"Congress shall make no law establishing one religious sect or society
in preference to others, nor shall the rights of conscience be infringed"
(Establishment of a preference, conscience, narrow non preference use
of establishment)
Not accepted
"Congress shall not make any law, infringing the rights of conscience,
or establishing any religious sect or society."
(establishment of a preference, conscience, narrow non preference use
of establishment)
Not accepted
"Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination of
religion in preference to another, or prohibiting free exercise thereof,
nor shall the rights of conscience be infringed."
(preference establishment, free exercise, conscience, narrow use of non
preference reference to establishment)
Not accepted
"Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof."
(Establishment, free exercise, back to broad use of establishment)
Not accepted
Submitted Back to the House:
"Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of
worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion."
(establishing preference, free exercise, back to narrow non preference
use of the word establishment)
Not accepted
Joint House/senate Language:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
(establishment, free exercise, back to broad)
Accepted.
What can be said with any degree of certainty?
We do know for sure that it was to prevent the later use of the
"necessary and proper" wording from being used as a doorway to make laws
regarding religion. We know that because Madison mentions that.
We do know that it was to prevent a sects, denominations, religions
from combining and establishing religions, forcing others to go along with
the program. We know that again because Madison mentions it.
We know the obvious, that is it was meant to prevent the government
from establishing religion, a religion, a sect, a denomination as the
"official" religion of the nation.
We also know that Congress was prevented from making an law RESPECTING
an establishment of religion. We know that because those words were
eventually chosen to be used.
We know that several non preferential proposals were made and all lost
out to the more broad, less defined word establishment, but even that word
did have meaning that applied in this country.
"Of the eleven states that ratified the 1st Amendment, nine (counting
Maryland) adhered to the viewpoint that support of religion and churches
should be voluntary, that any government financial assistance to religion
constituted an establishment of religion."
Source of Information
The First Freedoms, Church and State in America to the Passage of the First
Amendment, by Thomas Curry, page 220.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
House Rejected the Senate Version, Senate Would Not Accept The House
Version, Thus Six men, in a joint House-Senate Committee, with no records
of their discussions, debates, arguments, votes, etc took this:
"Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent
the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience."
and this
"Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a
mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion."
and created this:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof'."
The joint committee left no records of their deliberations. The full
House nor Senate never voted on the Joint House-Senate Committee's final
draft. The congressional action was completed. That final draft became the
Religious Clauses of the Bill of Rights
The six men on that committee were
From the House
Chairman: James Madison
Sherman
Vining
From the Senate
Chairman: Oliver Ellsworth
Carroll
Paterson
----------------------------------------------------
September, 10-19,1789--First Federal Congress (Amendments)
Commentary
On September 10, 17&19, the House received the Senate's message that it
had agreed to the House amendments, "with several amendments; to which they
desire the concurrence of this House." The House considered the subject on
September 19 and 21. On the latter date, they voted on the Senate changes.
"some of which they agreed to, and disagreed to others." The House then
resolved that "a committee of conference was desired with the Senate, on
the subject matter of the amendments disagreed to." Madison, Sherman, and
Vining (the three members who had played the largest part in the House
debate) were appointed managers on the part of the House, and Oliver
Ellsworth, Charles Carroll, and William Paterson as Senate conferees.
Some of the problems dealt with by the conferees may be seen in Madison's
letter to Pendleton (Sept 23, 1789).[see below]
On September 23. Madison made the Conference Report to the House. It
provided that the House would accept all the Senate amendments, and
provided for three further changes. The first was a minor alteration in the
amendment on representation. The third gave the final form to the Sixth
Amendment and reincluded in it the right to a jury trial of the locality
(though not restricted to the vicinage) which the Senate had omitted. The
second change made by the Conference Committee was of great importance--to
replace the weakened Senate version of the religious freedom guarantee by
the simple yet strict prohibitions of what are now the Establishment and
Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. Without a doubt, this final
version of the first guarantee of the First Amendment was written by
Madison; it repeats his earlier House version which the Senate had diluted.
As Irving Brant puts it, "Of all the versions of the religious guarantee,
this most directly covered the thing he was aiming at--absolute separation
of church and state and total exclusion of government aid to religion."
Madison's success in having the Conference Committee adopt his version of
the religious freedom guarantee marked a fitting culmination of his role in
the Bill of Rights debate.
On September 24, the House voted 37 to 14 to agree to the Conference
Report. On the same day, Ellsworth made the Conference Report to the
Senate. The next day, the Senate concurred in the amendments as voted by
the House and acquiesced in a House resolution requesting the President to
transmit copies of the amendments to the states. September 25 (the day on
which the congressional approval was completed) is cel | | | | | | | |
