Seeking An Honest Answer About Separation of Church State
Searchin Every Whicha Way
fighting over church-state separation issues. I've come across many
pro-separationists who explain quite competantly why we have the
establishment clause, how it works, and what would happen if we didn't.
Unfortunately the opposition comes across as incapable or unwilling to
explain their motives and how the current standard restricts their religious
liberties. So my question is for those people who want to ease separation of
church and state and allow government establishment of religion.
What do you have in mind or wish would happen if church state restrictions
were eased and abolished? And how do you feel now that your religious
liberties are restricted?
Honest answers respected and appreciated greatly.
Al Smith
Searchin Every Whicha Way wrote:
> If one has been around the usent long enough, one has come across people
> fighting over church-state separation issues. I've come across many
> pro-separationists who explain quite competantly why we have the
> establishment clause, how it works, and what would happen if we didn't.
> Unfortunately the opposition comes across as incapable or unwilling to
> explain their motives and how the current standard restricts their religious
> liberties. So my question is for those people who want to ease separation of
> church and state and allow government establishment of religion.
Do you mean like the Church of England? There are very, very few people
who want that.
> What do you have in mind or wish would happen if church state restrictions
> were eased and abolished? And how do you feel now that your religious
> liberties are restricted?
The most obvious modern restriction is teachers leading prayer.
> Honest answers respected and appreciated greatly.
Do you want honest answers for or against?
Saggy
You may have better luck in your search if you take your head out of
your ass, but I doubt it.
Don Homuth
>As to inclusive holidays - you have to give this a listen. It's a
>hoot.
>
>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5060356
Yep -- heard that one yesterday as I was preparing food for our party.
Pretty good party, save that freezing rain sorta got in the way, and
about a third of the would-be guests couldn't make it.
But the entire question of (a) preserving and strengthening the
Commercial side of Xmas whilst simultaneously (b) putting Xrist back
into it properly gave rise to the potential for a workable compromise:
Give gifts of carpentry tools only.
That's it -- no others allowed. Anything else would be ruled Entirely
Frivolous and quite possibly Blasphemous for not properly upholding
His Memory and all.
It would be of tremendous benefit to places like Home Depot and
Lowe's, though it might cause some problems with Target and Toys R Us
and all. They could change over to Boxing Day instead -- which has
sufficient commercial potential to handle any sort of fiscal
shortfall. Plus a more obvious Historical connection.
But it would manage to capture the best of both the religious and
commercial sides of the discussion.
Inevitably it would give rise to a WWJB bumper sticker -- What Would
Jesus Build.
But that's probably another story entirely.
mrmcafee(nospam)
retro...@comcast.net wrote:
> I appreciated this take on it recently:
>
> Dec 16th, 2005
>
> "... the reason you can’t mix religion and politics is, religion is
> about absolutes, right and wrong, good and evil. Politics is about
> compromise. If you cannot compromise on issues that are not central to
> a person’s faith and that’s about 99% of the issues our country faces
> then the country doesn’t work. The government doesn’t work. That’s why
> we’ve had government grinding to a halt in recent years. People are
> frustrated by it."
>
> Former Senator Gary Hart from " God and Caesar in America : An Essay
> on Religion and Politics.
>
He's looking for arguments from those that do not support the separation
of church and state.
>
> - - - -
> Just another albino black sheep
--
*******************
Michael R. McAfee
Mesa, AZ
*******************
Joe S.
"Al Smith" <caddys...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1135035494.9...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Searchin Every Whicha Way wrote:
>> If one has been around the usent long enough, one has come across people
>> fighting over church-state separation issues. I've come across many
>> pro-separationists who explain quite competantly why we have the
>> establishment clause, how it works, and what would happen if we didn't.
>> Unfortunately the opposition comes across as incapable or unwilling to
>> explain their motives and how the current standard restricts their
>> religious
>> liberties. So my question is for those people who want to ease separation
>> of
>> church and state and allow government establishment of religion.
>
> Do you mean like the Church of England? There are very, very few people
> who want that.
>
>> What do you have in mind or wish would happen if church state
>> restrictions
>> were eased and abolished? And how do you feel now that your religious
>> liberties are restricted?
How do I feel now that my religious liberties are restricted? What planet
are you on? My religious liberties are not restricted and I am not aware of
any restrictions on anyone else's.
Don Homuth
>On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 16:20:36 -0800, Don Homuth <dhom...@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Inevitably it would give rise to a WWJB bumper sticker -- What Would
>>Jesus Build.
>
>
>Or "what wood Jesus choose?"
Dogwood would be wood high on the list, one supposes.
Paul Mitchum
> Inevitably it would give rise to a WWJB bumper sticker -- What Would
> Jesus Build.
Hehe.
Ask Jimmy Carter.
--
It's often hard to tell: <http://tinyurl.com/9vqpa>
grandwazoo
If he was dyslectic. I think he would pick a nice cross grain.
Neolibertarian
"Searchin Every Whicha Way" <Sear...@search.nospam.my.com> wrote:
> If one has been around the usent long enough, one has come across people
> fighting over church-state separation issues. I've come across many
> pro-separationists who explain quite competantly why we have the
> establishment clause, how it works, and what would happen if we didn't.
> Unfortunately the opposition comes across as incapable or unwilling to
> explain their motives and how the current standard restricts their religious
> liberties. So my question is for those people who want to ease separation of
> church and state and allow government establishment of religion.
I don't know of anyone in the debate who's advocating government
establishment of religion.
It centers more around the free expression of religion and religious
ideas and precepts--especially as these manifest in government funded
institutions and schools.
>
> What do you have in mind or wish would happen if church state restrictions
> were eased and abolished? And how do you feel now that your religious
> liberties are restricted?
Look, you don't seem to have a very clear grasp of the issue. Maybe you
should do some research on your own.
In Vietnam today, Christian Montagnards are hiding in cemeteries from
the state police--they're in fear for their lives for practicing their
religion openly. The DRV is also busily destroying ancient buddhist
temples.
That's where "religious liberties" are restricted. Not in the United
States.
>
> Honest answers respected and appreciated greatly.
Jefferson didn't believe it was his, or anyone's, job to maintain your
religion for you. Nor do I.
However, prayer in school, display of the Ten Commandments in courts and
public buildings, and religious phrases on our money is a threat to
exactly nothing. And no one.
Certainly, they do not individually nor in their aggregate constitute a
violation of the First Amendment.
--
NeoLibertarian
Global Warming: It ain't the heat, it's the stupidity.
cogn...@yahoo.com
> In article
> <cognac756-ADECD...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
> Neolibertarian <cogn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > However, prayer in school, display of the Ten Commandments in courts
> > and public buildings, and religious phrases on our money is a threat
> > to exactly nothing. And no one.
> >
> > Certainly, they do not individually nor in their aggregate constitute
> > a violation of the First Amendment.
>
> religion.
No, I'm sorry, the implicit or explicit endorsement doesn't violate the
First Amendment.
Maybe you should read my Constitution sometime.
>
> What would your reaction be if your child told you that all the students
> in the school were required to recite the following every day?
>
> Charge of the Goddess
> "Whenever you have need of anything, once in the month, and better it be
> when the moon is full, you shall assemble in some secret place and adore
> the spirit of Me who is Queen of all the Wise.
What's actually in their text books is even worse than that. They're
exposed to all sorts of mythology in American History, Economics, and
the Social Sciences.
The problem with your analogous example is manifold: "In God We Trust"
is far less specific and more universal than any single religious
belief. The idea of God is universal, and as used, implies nothing
beyond the fact that man is not an end in himself. Sine qua non to the
equal protection clause, for instance.
Your example purposely excludes American Indians, Jews, Christians,
Muslims, Buddhists, Shintoists, Hindus, et al.
"In God We Trust" and "One Nation Under God" excludes no Religious
Sect. Ergo, it endorses no particular Religious Sect. On the otherhand,
your example is clearly imprimatur of neo-paganism. That would be a
clear violation of my First Amendment.
--
NeoLibertarian
caddys...@my-deja.com
In that case he only needs to understand that the meaning of laws
aren't subject to modern interpretations:
"The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all
instruments is, to construe them according to the sense of the terms,
and the intention of the parties." - Joseph Story
"I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in
which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that
sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that is not the
guide in expounding it, there may be no security." - James Madison
"The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to
discover the meaning of those who made it." - James Wilson
"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry
ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect
the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what
meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it,
conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - Thomas Jefferson
Or even common sense:
"Congress" != "High School Student"
"Prayer" != "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
caddys...@my-deja.com
It sounds like you are saying that when these rights (listed above) are
restricted it's not as bad as Vietnam so it's OK because "That's where
"religious liberties" are restricted. Not in the United States."
> Certainly, they do not individually nor in their aggregate constitute a
caddys...@my-deja.com
> In article
> <cognac756-ADECD...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
> Neolibertarian <cogn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > and public buildings, and religious phrases on our money is a threat
> > to exactly nothing. And no one.
> >
> > Certainly, they do not individually nor in their aggregate constitute
> > a violation of the First Amendment.
>
> religion.
Let's pretend that "Congress" actually made a law concerning one or
more of the above. Which religion does it establish or what religion
does it prevent the free exercise of?
> What would your reaction be if your child told you that all the students
> in the school were required to recite the following every day?
>
> Charge of the Goddess
> "Whenever you have need of anything, once in the month, and better it be
> when the moon is full, you shall assemble in some secret place and adore
> the spirit of Me who is Queen of all the Wise. You shall be free from
> slavery, and as a sign that you be free you shall be naked in your
> rites. Sing, feast, dance, make music and love, all in My presence, for
> Mine is the ecstasy of the spirit, and Mine also is joy on earth. For My
> law is love unto all beings. Mine is the secret that opens the door of
> youth, and Mine is the cup of wine of life that is the Cauldron of
> Ceridwen that is the holy grail of immortality. I give the knowledge of
> the spirit eternal and beyond death I give peace and freedom and reunion
> with those that have gone before. Nor do I demand aught of sacrifice,
> for behold, I am the mother of all things, and My love is poured upon
> the earth."
That should be up to the teacher.
Gray Shockley
> Look, you don't seem to have a very clear grasp of the issue. Maybe you
> should do some research on your own.
Yeah, if you can't agree with anonymous poster, you need to learn
how.
> In Vietnam today, Christian Montagnards
Hm,m,m - where is this? I worked for several months with the
Montagnards in the Central Highlands (Darlac Province, mostly) and
I never met any who practised Far Eastern, mystical religions.
> are hiding in cemeteries from
> the state police--they're in fear for their lives for practicing their
> religion openly.
The Montagnards have /always/ been enemies - to greater or lesser
degrees - with the VietNamese people. They're a minority group that
a lot of the VietNamese would like extinguished from the face of
the Earth.
But "fear for their lives"? This is one of the fiercest groups of
warriors that has ever been. When did this change? It wasn't with
the introduction of Christianity was it?
> The DRV is also busily destroying ancient buddhist
> temples.
>
> That's where "religious liberties" are restricted. Not in the United
> States.
>>
>> Honest answers respected and appreciated greatly.
>
> Jefferson didn't believe it was his, or anyone's, job to maintain your
> religion for you. Nor do I.
>
> However,
Here we go: "However". This "However" means that what was said
before the "However" is operationally null and void and the writer
is fixin' to go totally off in the other direction, contradicting
what s/he/it/hey has already stated.
And here we go:
> prayer in school, display of the Ten Commandments in courts and
> public buildings, and religious phrases on our money is a threat to
> exactly nothing. And no one.
It's against the law. It's a threat to the United States.
If Christians have to cram their religion - forcibly- down poeple's
throats, let's, at the very least, be honest enough that some of
these alleged "Christians" (who bear no resemblance to a
Christ-like life) are trying to use the government to force their
religion and hypocrisy on children who have no voice in what is
presented to them, whether it be "New Math" or it be the Holy
Christian mantra of "Hate, Hate, Hate".
> Certainly, they do not individually nor in their aggregate constitute a
> violation of the First Amendment.
I refer you to the Congress-passed law that iinserted "UNDER GOD"
into what had been a patriotic pledge (I was in the third-grade and
it seemed sacreligious).
What First Amendment? Oh, do you mean where it says, "Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"?
Please explain to me - who is obviously not smart like you or I
would agree with you - right - how a law passed by Congress
inserting the words "UNDER GOD" in what had been a patriotic pledge
is not a law that has to do with the establishment of religion.
Or how about the Ten Commandments? Well, how about the Ten
Commandments?
They're pretty trivial to Christianity as the //New// Testament is
what Christians primarily go by and the two Great Commandments are
from the Voice of Jesus rather than some old rocks carved up.
In case you're not familiar with the two commandments to which I'm
referring (not unusual as the hypocrites, whoremongers and
criminals that use Christianity for their own ends refer more -
much more - to Paul and the Old Testament - and seem - akmazingly
enough, to, pretty much, ignore everything that Jesus is recorded
as saying.
#######################
Anyway, Jesus, the self-proclaimed Son of Man said:
22:36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with
all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour
as thyself.
22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
#######################
Power Trippers - such as you - don't really have anything to do
with Jesus except to crucify Jesus with your every action and your
every word.
I can sure see why you're wearing a falsie rather than posting
under your "Christian" name.
Gray Shockley
------------------
Support Santeria as our national religion.
[religion: it's still just for quacks, you know]
mrmcafee(nospam)
cogn...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Michelle Steiner wrote:
>
>>In article
>><cognac756-ADECD...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
>> Neolibertarian <cogn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>However, prayer in school, display of the Ten Commandments in courts
>>>and public buildings, and religious phrases on our money is a threat
>>>to exactly nothing. And no one.
>>>
>>>Certainly, they do not individually nor in their aggregate constitute
>>>a violation of the First Amendment.
>>
>>They most certainly do. They put a governmental imprimatur on one
>>religion.
>
>
> No, I'm sorry, the implicit or explicit endorsement doesn't violate the
> First Amendment.
Yes it does.
>
> Maybe you should read my Constitution sometime.
Maybe you ought to read the Constitution of the United States sometime.
That's what's under discussion.
>
>>What would your reaction be if your child told you that all the students
>>in the school were required to recite the following every day?
>>
>>Charge of the Goddess
>>"Whenever you have need of anything, once in the month, and better it be
>>when the moon is full, you shall assemble in some secret place and adore
>>the spirit of Me who is Queen of all the Wise.
>
>
> What's actually in their text books is even worse than that. They're
> exposed to all sorts of mythology in American History, Economics, and
> the Social Sciences.
I don't know that to be true. Perhaps you should either provide a
verifiable example, or your definition of "myth".
>
> The problem with your analogous example is manifold: "In God We Trust"
> is far less specific and more universal than any single religious
> belief. The idea of God is universal, and as used, implies nothing
> beyond the fact that man is not an end in himself. Sine qua non to the
> equal protection clause, for instance.
It defines one of the most basic and divisive issues involving religion,
and comes down on just one side at the expense of the other. Polytheism
v. monotheism. The motto leaves out all pagan religions, plus Hinduism,
and I'm sure a host of religions that I am unaware of. It may even leave
out the religious beliefs of some of our Native Americans.
>
> Your example purposely excludes American Indians, Jews, Christians,
> Muslims, Buddhists, Shintoists, Hindus, et al.
>
> "In God We Trust" and "One Nation Under God" excludes no Religious
> Sect. Ergo, it endorses no particular Religious Sect. On the otherhand,
> your example is clearly imprimatur of neo-paganism. That would be a
> clear violation of my First Amendment.
Explain to us how references to just one "God" can be stretched to
include religions that incorporate a multitude of "Gods"? Now if the
motto were "In Gods We Trust", your statement would be correct. The only
people left our would be the atheists which, in my opinion, would be
sufficient to make it unconstitutional.
The only way these slogans have lasted as long has they have is because
the Courts, in an uncustomary flight from reality, has declared that
they are meaningless. Just words on paper. We don't really mean it.
(Aronow v. United States (1970), the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit ruled that, "It is quite obvious that the national
motto and the slogan on coinage and currency, 'In God We Trust'--, has
nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is
of a patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to
a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise.".)
>
> --
> NeoLibertarian
J.C.
"mrmcafee(nospam)" <"mrmcafee(nospam)"@cybertrails.com> wrote in message
news:c7mdnQM3K-OugTXe...@sedona.net...
>
>
> cogn...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>
>>>In article
>>><cognac756-ADECD...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
>>> Neolibertarian <cogn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>However, prayer in school, display of the Ten Commandments in courts
>>>>and public buildings, and religious phrases on our money is a threat
>>>>to exactly nothing. And no one.
>>>>
>>>>Certainly, they do not individually nor in their aggregate constitute
>>>>a violation of the First Amendment.
>>>
>>>They most certainly do. They put a governmental imprimatur on one
>>>religion.
>>
>>
>> No, I'm sorry, the implicit or explicit endorsement doesn't violate the
>> First Amendment.
>
> Yes it does.
No it doesn't. Taxpayer money is spent every day promoting religion by being
used to pay the salaries of military chaplins, building and maintaining
houses of worship on military bases and providing military chaplins with
clothing particular to their specific religion, such as vestment robes etc.
If you, or anyone else for that matter, really thought you were on solid
ground with the arguments you make, why don't you just have your favorite
legislator introduce an amendment to the Constitution spelling out, in very
simple and explicit language, what you don't think should be allowed and run
it up the flagpole and see if it will fly? The fact that for 200+ years, no
one has even made the faintest attempt at doing that tells us that those
anti-religionist just don't have the courage of their convictions.
No one has yet been able to convince the majority of Americans that a simple
letter that someone wrote to a very small group of Baptists carrys any
Constitutional weight what so ever. All they have to go on is that and some
activist judges flawed decisions and we all know that judges err just as
much as the average person and that there are many instances in which their
decisions are overturned, reversed or set aside.
THE ONLY EXPLICIT EDICT OF THE FIRST AMENMENT IS THAT CONGRESS SHALL REMAIN
NEUTRAL IN MATTERS OF RELIGION and by way of the 10th Amendment as confirmed
by the 14th Amendment only the individual states can address matters of
religion and those states are free to decide their own social and religious
agends so long as it complies with the 14th Amendment by inculcating any
laws pertaining to their social and religious agendas under the due process
of law. I would suggest people learn and understand what "due process of
law" really means and all that it encompasses.
--
What this country needs is a government in which
there are two four year term limits for everybody,
no contributions of any kind to anyone that the
contributor can NOT vote for, no retirement plan
for politicians and no taxpayer money to anyone
that has not voted in 3 of the past 4 elections and
no taxpayer funded grants to anyone, only loans that
must be paid back at the private sector rate of interest.
And I submit to you that it is YOUR fault for not insisting
that we have such a system.
Criticism is easy and takes no intelligence at all.
Offerring a valid, different solution takes brains.
J. C.
Searchin Every Whicha Way
"Neolibertarian" <cogn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cognac756-ADECD...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <11qeee5...@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Searchin Every Whicha Way" <Sear...@search.nospam.my.com> wrote:
>
>> If one has been around the usent long enough, one has come across people
>> fighting over church-state separation issues. I've come across many
>> pro-separationists who explain quite competantly why we have the
>> establishment clause, how it works, and what would happen if we didn't.
>> Unfortunately the opposition comes across as incapable or unwilling to
>> explain their motives and how the current standard restricts their
>> religious
>> liberties. So my question is for those people who want to ease separation
>> of
>> church and state and allow government establishment of religion.
>
> I don't know of anyone in the debate who's advocating government
> establishment of religion.
Then you aren't listening or are actually buying the spin and lies from the
religious right.
Do some reading wrt what the right was saying some twenty years ago before
they found political strategists who told them to tone it down a bit because
the vast majority of America wouldn't go for it if they were direct about
it. Also read a bit on the dominionists and Rev. Moon and how all three have
come together out of political necessity.
>
> It centers more around the free expression of religion and religious
> ideas and precepts--especially as these manifest in government funded
> institutions and schools.
I see no government advocated restriction on religious ideas and expression
in any of those institutions. Maybe a few misguided beaurocrats but these
are usually set straight before they get to court (by the ACLU no less), and
if not the court usually rules in favor of the free religious expresssion,
but of course you never hear about that because it doesn't rally the true
believers as much as the appearance of oppression. What is restricted is
state sponsored or endorsed worship or proselytization, as it should be. A
persons religious rights end at the tips of their fingers or at my nose and
if they believe that their religious liberties entitles them to go beyond
that and violate the rights of others, well that's just too bad and they
should not be accommodated .
>> What do you have in mind or wish would happen if church state
>> restrictions
>> were eased and abolished? And how do you feel now that your religious
>> liberties are restricted?
>
> Look, you don't seem to have a very clear grasp of the issue. Maybe you
> should do some research on your own.
This from the guy that said no one had a goal to set up a church state or
theocratic democracy here in the United States.
>
> In Vietnam today, Christian Montagnards are hiding in cemeteries from
> the state police--they're in fear for their lives for practicing their
> religion openly. The DRV is also busily destroying ancient buddhist
> temples.
This isn't Vietnam.
>
> That's where "religious liberties" are restricted. Not in the United
> States.
Exactly. Then why such a push to weaken church state separation?
>>
>> Honest answers respected and appreciated greatly.
>
> Jefferson didn't believe it was his, or anyone's, job to maintain your
> religion for you. Nor do I.
>
> However, prayer in school, display of the Ten Commandments in courts and
> public buildings, and religious phrases on our money is a threat to
> exactly nothing. And no one.
Let me guess, you will never, ever believe that a little christian prayer
led by the teacher, or bible study is in any way offensive, harmfull, or in
violation of the civil rights of the jewish, mormon, catholic, JW, Unitarian
Universalist, non church attending, or non believer kids in the class.
Yes or no. We need to get this concept out of the way before you advance
past putting your head in the sand when someone says something you don't
like to hear.
> Certainly, they do not individually nor in their aggregate constitute a
> violation of the First Amendment.
What part of "forced church attendance" do you think is not a violation of
ones civil rights?
If I am an unbeliever and so are my kids, they should not be told they have
to either pray or leave the room, singled out as outsiders for their beliefs
and told in no uncertain terms that the state supports the rights of
protestants but not the rights of any other belief.
One can pray and study the bible privately or quietly during school. One
does not have to involve the unwilling in the support or practice unless
ones goal is proselytization or to bully heathens
Searchin Every Whicha Way
"J.C." <jcsp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7hVpf.19361$Kd1....@fe05.news.easynews.com...
>
> "mrmcafee(nospam)" <"mrmcafee(nospam)"@cybertrails.com> wrote in message
> news:c7mdnQM3K-OugTXe...@sedona.net...
>>
>>
>> cogn...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>> Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article
>>>><cognac756-ADECD...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>> Neolibertarian <cogn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>However, prayer in school, display of the Ten Commandments in courts
>>>>>and public buildings, and religious phrases on our money is a threat
>>>>>to exactly nothing. And no one.
>>>>>
>>>>>Certainly, they do not individually nor in their aggregate constitute
>>>>>a violation of the First Amendment.
>>>>
>>>>They most certainly do. They put a governmental imprimatur on one
>>>>religion.
>>>
>>>
>>> No, I'm sorry, the implicit or explicit endorsement doesn't violate the
>>> First Amendment.
>>
>> Yes it does.
>
>
> No it doesn't. Taxpayer money is spent every day promoting religion by
> being used to pay the salaries of military chaplins, building and
> maintaining houses of worship on military bases and providing military
> chaplins with clothing particular to their specific religion, such as
> vestment robes etc.
Because they do does not make it right.
Years ago kids were forced to pray and we set that right. We should continue
to do so untill there is no government support for religion and the
government remains expressly neutral with nothing favoring religion or non
religion and the religious beliefs of politicains are purely private and
unsupported by government.
>
> If you, or anyone else for that matter, really thought you were on solid
> ground with the arguments you make, why don't you just have your favorite
> legislator introduce an amendment to the Constitution spelling out, in
> very simple and explicit language, what you don't think should be allowed
> and run it up the flagpole and see if it will fly? The fact that for 200+
> years, no one has even made the faintest attempt at doing that tells us
> that those anti-religionist just don't have the courage of their
> convictions.
No, it's politicians that don't have the courage of their convictions.
They're afraid that if they took that position they might offend someone and
lose the election. Fortunately that used to be the case regarding school
prayer but we got to a point where the government did the right thing and
outlawed teacher led prayer and bible study as a requirement. We will
someday advance far enough to do as you demonstrate so your argument is
ignorant of history, politics, and advancing society. But I don't need to
tell you that because you apparently embrace willfull ignorance to the
benefit of your argument.
J.C.
Searchin Every Whicha Way
Yes, you do make a big deal out of running away rather than face your
errancy.
Baxter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Neolibertarian" <cogn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cognac756-ADECD...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <11qeee5...@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Searchin Every Whicha Way" <Sear...@search.nospam.my.com> wrote:
>
> > If one has been around the usent long enough, one has come across people
> > fighting over church-state separation issues. I've come across many
> > pro-separationists who explain quite competantly why we have the
> > establishment clause, how it works, and what would happen if we didn't.
> > Unfortunately the opposition comes across as incapable or unwilling to
> > explain their motives and how the current standard restricts their
religious
> > liberties. So my question is for those people who want to ease
separation of
> > church and state and allow government establishment of religion.
>
> I don't know of anyone in the debate who's advocating government
> establishment of religion.
Then you've got deliberate blinders on. You can -start- with the likes of
Robertson, Falwell, Dobson and Bush himself.
----------
On Wednesday evening of this week, Christian radio stations nationwide
aired a recent address to the Council for National Policy by James Dobson,
President of Focus on the Family. The Council for National Policy is an
interfaith network which is committed to the establishment of an American
theocracy.
http://www.balaams-ass.com/journal/prophecy/fof-nwo.htm
CUF shares in common with ultra-fundamentalist Jews, Muslims, and Hindus the
establishment of theocracy as the ultimate goal. One of the key features of
Christian ultra-fundamentalism is that all other worldviews are seen as
enemies to be extinguished or at least stopped from spreading (Marzano
1993/1994). There is no secular worldview that holds a similar position
Two of the most vocal advocates of CUF are evangelists Jerry Falwell and Pat
Robertson.
Tony Perkins is another vocal CUF. He is the president of the Family
Research Council, another anti-Constitutional group claiming to be defending
"the family, faith, and freedom." What Perkins wants for America is the same
thing Dobson desires: a Christian theocracy created in their image of
Christianity as CUF.
http://skepdic.com/ultrafundamentalism.html
hal
...
>What this country needs is ... and no taxpayer money to anyone
>that has not voted in 3 of the past 4 elections
I think that is just the opposite of what we need. We could not get it
past the courts now but I think we should say that anyone who receives
taxpayer money should not be allowed to vote. One of the problems is
that those sucking at the public teat continue to vote themselves more
largese at the expense of the productive citizens. Cut off their vote
and we would deny them that power.
J.C.
"hal" <hlil...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1135114914.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> J.C. writes
>
> ...
>
>>What this country needs is ... and no taxpayer money to anyone
>>that has not voted in 3 of the past 4 elections
>
> I think that is just the opposite of what we need. We could not get it
> past the courts now
If we demanded that the original intent of the Constitution was adhered to,
we would:
Federalist #78
Don Homuth
>J.C. writes
>
>...
>
>>What this country needs is ... and no taxpayer money to anyone
>>that has not voted in 3 of the past 4 elections
>
>I think that is just the opposite of what we need. We could not get it
>past the courts now but I think we should say that anyone who receives
>taxpayer money should not be allowed to vote.
That would take most of the populace, Rs and Ds alike, out of the
voting pool.
--
"Don Homuth" <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:s96jq1d6219mq8rvd...@4ax.com...
Explain this. I'm going to suggest that you not consider someone who
provides an explicit service or product and receives pay as a result to be
in this category. Otherwise, anyone who owns stock in a company (thereby
making them an owner = at least in part) that does business with the
government would also be subject to this provision.
gatt
>>I think that is just the opposite of what we need. We could not get it
>>past the courts now but I think we should say that anyone who receives
>>taxpayer money should not be allowed to vote.
>
> That would take most of the populace, Rs and Ds alike, out of the
> voting pool.
HOT DAMN! Now we're getting somewhere! :>
-c
Don Homuth
wrote:
>
>"Don Homuth" <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:s96jq1d6219mq8rvd...@4ax.com...
>> On 20 Dec 2005 13:41:54 -0800, "hal" <hlil...@juno.com> wrote:
>> I think we should say that anyone who receives
>>>taxpayer money should not be allowed to vote.
>>
>> That would take most of the populace, Rs and Ds alike, out of the
>> voting pool.
>
>Explain this. I'm going to suggest that you not consider someone who
>provides an explicit service or product and receives pay as a result to be
>in this category.
Doesn't matter if they also do that. You'd Still take most of them
out of the voting populace.
> Otherwise, anyone who owns stock in a company (thereby
>making them an owner = at least in part) that does business with the
>government would also be subject to this provision.
Be careful what you ask for.
Start with subsidies and sole source contracts. Work outwards from
there.
Gray Shockley
>
> "mrmcafee(nospam)" <"mrmcafee(nospam)"@cybertrails.com> wrote in message
> news:c7mdnQM3K-OugTXe...@sedona.net...
>>
>>
>> cogn...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>> Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article
>>>> <cognac756-ADECD...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>> Neolibertarian <cogn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> However, prayer in school, display of the Ten Commandments in courts
>>>>> and public buildings, and religious phrases on our money is a threat
>>>>> to exactly nothing. And no one.
>>>>>
>>>>> Certainly, they do not individually nor in their aggregate constitute
>>>>> a violation of the First Amendment.
>>>>
>>>> They most certainly do. They put a governmental imprimatur on one
>>>> religion.
>>>
>>>
>>> No, I'm sorry, the implicit or explicit endorsement doesn't violate the
>>> First Amendment.
>>
>> Yes it does.
>
>
> No it doesn't. Taxpayer money is spent every day promoting religion by being
> used to pay the salaries of military chaplins, building and maintaining
> houses of worship on military bases and providing military chaplins with
> clothing particular to their specific religion, such as vestment robes etc.
And for a very good reason: The military is committed to supplying
as many amenities of "home" as possible, consistent with its
mission.
When I was First Sergeant I asked a chaplain to speak to a member
of his congregation (about screwing everyone she knew with her
husband coming back in about a week). It was a good "non-official"
approach to solving a problem. We had one in Germany in 1968 who
used ta come up to the missile site and show travel films and then
"hang around" to see if anyone wanted to talk about anything with
him.
There's been a drive for years by many pastors and financial
estates and planning boards - oops! I mean deacons, elders and
whatevers to do away with military chaplains in the USA so that the
town's churches could get some of the loot that people put in the
collection now or hell later plates.
Extrapolating from the military - which has different "rights" and
obligations - to the Constitution is bogus.
When one enters into the military, one swaps out parts of the
Constitution to defend it.
This it ever is and, thus, it remains.
> If you, or anyone else for that matter, really thought you were on solid
> ground with the arguments you make, why don't you just have your favorite
> legislator introduce an amendment to the Constitution spelling out, in very
> simple and explicit language, what you don't think should be allowed and run
> it up the flagpole and see if it will fly? The fact that for 200+ years, no
> one has even made the faintest attempt at doing that tells us that those
> anti-religionist just don't have the courage of their convictions.
You're talking out of your bush, anonymous boy.
You, apparently,have never been in the military, oh, thou of no
intelligent design, or - bush forbid - were able to get up eacj
morning with a tabula rosa.
However, in you ever want to join the military - which has bushed
its requirements down - I would be happy to give you a
recommendation in the care and maintenance of horizontal and piped
waste elimination appliances.
You seem particularly qualified to be around bush elimination.
Gray Shockley
------------------------
You who build these altars now
to sacrifice these children,
you must not do it anymore.
A scheme is not a vision
and you never have been tempted
by a demon or a god.
- Leonard Cohen
Gray Shockley
wrote:
> Michelle Steiner wrote:
>> In article
>> <cognac756-ADECD...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
>> Neolibertarian <cogn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> However, prayer in school, display of the Ten Commandments in courts
>>> and public buildings, and religious phrases on our money is a threat
>>> to exactly nothing. And no one.
>>>
>>> Certainly, they do not individually nor in their aggregate constitute
>>> a violation of the First Amendment.
>>
>> They most certainly do. They put a governmental imprimatur on one
>> religion.
>
> Let's pretend that "Congress" actually made a law concerning one or
> more of the above.
Let's not.
Which religion does it establish
The Constitution doesn't say anything about "which" religion, it
states, "religion".
> or what religion
> does it prevent the free exercise of?
The Constitution doesn't say anything about "what" religion, it
states, "religion".
The Constitution (excerpt) reads:
Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof;
Being guarenteed "freedom of religion" does not grant you a "free"
podium, nor force the country to provide you with one.
I'd like to see "tax exemption" totally withdrawn from every
organization. Part of that is that I'm involuntarily contributing
to these "organizations" because I (and other taxpayers in the
United States) have to make up with our money, the taxes for
services and such that these private club members don't pay.
And why should some businesses be required to pay taxes while other
businesses are granted exemptions from taxes?
Gray Shockley
------------------
Support Santeria as our national religion.
[religion: it's still just for quacks, you know]
>
Uncle Sam
<graysh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The Constitution doesn't say anything about "what" religion, it
>states, "religion".
Gonna tell us *any religion* that has been established?
Eh?
Come on shitwad, knock yerself out.
Martin Smith
The christian religian, the jewish religion,and the islamic religion,
among others.
Gray Shockley
Goodness, gracious.
An anonymous "patriot".
Does your mommie know that you need
your mouth washed out with Drano?
You're a very naughty girl/boy/thingie.
Uncle Sam
<slee...@jetlag.com> wrote:
>Uncle Sam wrote:
>> On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 12:52:11 -0600, Gray Shockley
>> <graysh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The Constitution doesn't say anything about "what" religion, it
>>>states, "religion".
>>
>>
>> Gonna tell us *any religion* that has been established?
>>
>> Eh?
>>
>> Come on shitwad, knock yerself out.
>
>The christian religian,
Which one?
> the jewish religion,
Oh, where, when?
>and the islamic religion,
Where?
When?
Uncle Sam
<graysh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 14:28:48 -0600, Uncle Sam wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 12:52:11 -0600, Gray Shockley
>> <graysh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The Constitution doesn't say anything about "what" religion, it
>>> states, "religion".
>>
>> Gonna tell us *any religion* that has been established?
>>
>> Eh?
>>
>> Come on shitwad, knock yerself out.
>
>
>Goodness, gracious.
>
>An anonymous "patriot".
Never heard of anonymous political leafletting have you?
Moron.
>Does your mommie know that you need
>your mouth washed out with Drano?
Does yours know you stole her favorite douche liquid?
grandwazoo
Get it right, "respecting an establishment of religion". It is not
'establishing', but not "respecting an establishment". It doesn't matter
what religion or any particular religion, the government makes no law
with respect to religion.
Martin Smith
> On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 22:31:40 +0100, Martin Smith
> <slee...@jetlag.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Uncle Sam wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 12:52:11 -0600, Gray Shockley
>>><graysh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The Constitution doesn't say anything about "what" religion, it
>>>>states, "religion".
>>>
>>>
>>>Gonna tell us *any religion* that has been established?
>>>
>>>Eh?
>>>
>>>Come on shitwad, knock yerself out.
>>
>>The christian religian,
>
>
> Which one?
All of them.
>>the jewish religion,
>
>
> Oh, where, when?
In the United States. Continuously.
>>and the islamic religion,
>
>
> Where?
In the United States.
> When?
Continuously.
If you explain the issue you are trying to resolve, maybe I can help.
Cary Kittrell
>
> On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 21:54:09 -0600, Gray Shockley
> <graysh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 14:28:48 -0600, Uncle Sam wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 12:52:11 -0600, Gray Shockley
> >> <graysh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> The Constitution doesn't say anything about "what" religion, it
> >>> states, "religion".
> >>
> >> Gonna tell us *any religion* that has been established?
> >>
> >> Eh?
> >>
> >> Come on shitwad, knock yerself out.
> >
> >
> >Goodness, gracious.
> >
> >An anonymous "patriot".
>
> Never heard of anonymous political leafletting have you?
Of course. That would have been at a time when doing
so could have gotten you hanged.
On the other hand, continuing to hide when your
political outlook is pretty much the dominant viewpoint
bespeaks a cowardice well above and beyond
any rational need.
-- cary
Uncle Sam
wrote:
>Uncle Sam wrote:
>> On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 12:52:11 -0600, Gray Shockley
>> <graysh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The Constitution doesn't say anything about "what" religion, it
>>>states, "religion".
>>
>>
>> Gonna tell us *any religion* that has been established?
>>
>> Eh?
>>
>> Come on shitwad, knock yerself out.
>
>Get it right, "respecting an establishment of religion". It is not
>'establishing',
More circumlocition - NO STATE RELIGION(s) exist!
Uncle Sam
<slee...@jetlag.com> wrote:
>Uncle Sam wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 22:31:40 +0100, Martin Smith
>> <slee...@jetlag.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Uncle Sam wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 12:52:11 -0600, Gray Shockley
>>>><graysh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The Constitution doesn't say anything about "what" religion, it
>>>>>states, "religion".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Gonna tell us *any religion* that has been established?
>>>>
>>>>Eh?
>>>>
>>>>Come on shitwad, knock yerself out.
>>>
>>>The christian religian,
>>
>>
>> Which one?
>
>All of them.
Prove it.
Where is the national STATE Lutheran HQ?
>>>the jewish religion,
>>
>>
>> Oh, where, when?
>
>In the United States. Continuously.
Not an answer, you stupid shit.
>>>and the islamic religion,
>>
>>
>> Where?
>
>In the United States.
Where???
>> When?
>
>Continuously.
Initiation date please!
>If you explain the issue you are trying to resolve, maybe I can help.
You couldn't help a turd out yer ass.
Uncle Sam
(Cary Kittrell) wrote:
>In article <08s3s1h2equjugseb...@4ax.com> the hand @ATLM.ha writes:
>>
>> On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 21:54:09 -0600, Gray Shockley
>> <graysh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 14:28:48 -0600, Uncle Sam wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 12:52:11 -0600, Gray Shockley
>> >> <graysh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> The Constitution doesn't say anything about "what" religion, it
>> >>> states, "religion".
>> >>
>> >> Gonna tell us *any religion* that has been established?
>> >>
>> >> Eh?
>> >>
>> >> Come on shitwad, knock yerself out.
>> >
>> >
>> >Goodness, gracious.
>> >
>> >An anonymous "patriot".
>>
>> Never heard of anonymous political leafletting have you?
>
>Of course. That would have been at a time when doing
>so could have gotten you hanged.
By the "king's" men,...lol!!!
>On the other hand, continuing to hide when your
>political outlook is pretty much the dominant viewpoint
>bespeaks a cowardice well above and beyond
>any rational need.
Never hear of identity theft?
Phishing?
etc?
Dumbass.
mrmcafee(nospam)
Uncle Sam wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 23:15:03 -0700, grandwazoo <gr...@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Uncle Sam wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 12:52:11 -0600, Gray Shockley
>>><graysh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The Constitution doesn't say anything about "what" religion, it
>>>>states, "religion".
>>>
>>>
>>>Gonna tell us *any religion* that has been established?
>>>
>>>Eh?
>>>
>>>Come on shitwad, knock yerself out.
>>
>>Get it right, "respecting an establishment of religion". It is not
>>'establishing',
>
>
>
> More circumlocition - NO STATE RELIGION(s) exist!
Good! That being the case, I guess we can quit putting references to God
on our state currency and in our patriotic oaths.
I'm sure glad that's settled!
--
*******************
Michael R. McAfee
Mesa, AZ
*******************
grandwazoo
"Uncle Sam" <pat...@concord.bz> wrote in message
news:p375s1hh82vbfgk6p...@4ax.com...
Nor can government make any law respecting religion.
Martin Smith
>On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 07:38:20 +0100, Martin Smith
><slee...@jetlag.com> wrote:
>
>>Uncle Sam wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 22:31:40 +0100, Martin Smith
>>> <slee...@jetlag.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Uncle Sam wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 12:52:11 -0600, Gray Shockley
>>>>><graysh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>The Constitution doesn't say anything about "what" religion, it
>>>>>>states, "religion".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Gonna tell us *any religion* that has been established?
>>>>>
>>>>>Eh?
>>>>>
>>>>>Come on shitwad, knock yerself out.
>>>>
>>>>The christian religian,
>>>
>>>
>>> Which one?
>>
>>All of them.
>
>Prove it.
>
>Where is the national STATE Lutheran HQ?
You are so simple-minded. Your remarks mean you think "establish"
means create. It does mean create, but that isn't the only meaning.
Establish also means validate. Government use of religious symbols,
government granting tax-free status to churches, government use of
prayer and benedictions, government mandating the words "under God" be
added to the Pledge of Allegiance - all these serve to validate
religions, all religions based on a deity. That *is* establishment of
religion. It is unnecessary for the affected religions, and it makes
the US less trusted in the rest of the world.
The US should clean its government house, making it purely secular.
That doesn't mean politicians can't or shouldn't be religious people.
It means the structure of government should be separate from all
religions. It means legislation should be justified by secular
argument, never by religious argument.
Uncle Sam
<"mrmcafee(nospam)"@cybertrails.com> wrote:
>
>
>Uncle Sam wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 23:15:03 -0700, grandwazoo <gr...@nospam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Uncle Sam wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 12:52:11 -0600, Gray Shockley
>>>><graysh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The Constitution doesn't say anything about "what" religion, it
>>>>>states, "religion".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Gonna tell us *any religion* that has been established?
>>>>
>>>>Eh?
>>>>
>>>>Come on shitwad, knock yerself out.
>>>
>>>Get it right, "respecting an establishment of religion". It is not
>>>'establishing',
>>
>>
>>
>> More circumlocition - NO STATE RELIGION(s) exist!
>
>Good! That being the case, I guess we can quit putting references to God
>on our state currency and in our patriotic oaths.
Why?
Wasn't this nation FOUNDED under GOD???
http://faithfacts.gospelcom.net/cul_bible.html
Biblical Principles:
The Basis for America's Laws
PRINCIPLE
LEGAL DOCUMENT
BIBLICAL REFERENCE
Sovereign authority of God, not sovereignty of the state, or
sovereignty of man Mayflower Compact, Declaration, Constitution,
currency, oaths, mention of God in all 50 state constitutions, Pledge
of Allegiance Ex. 18:16, 20:3, Dt. 10:20, 2 Chron. 7:14, Ps. 83:18,
91:2, Isa. 9:6-7, Dan. 4:32, Jn. 19:11, Acts 5:29, Rom. 13:1, Col.
1:15-20, 1 Tim. 6:15
Moral absolutes, Fixed standards, Absolute truth, Sanctity of life
Declaration ("unalienable" rights—life, etc., "self-evident" truths)
Ex. 20:13, Dt. 30:19, Ps. 119: 142-152, Pr. 14:34, Isa. 5:20-21, Jn.
10:10, Rom. 2:15, Heb. 13:8
Rule of law rather than authority of man Declaration,
Constitution Ex. 18-24, Dt. 17:20, Isa. 8:19-20, Mat. 5:17-18
All men are sinners Constitutional checks and balances Gen.
8:21, Jer. 17:9, Mk. 7: 20-23, Rom. 3:23, 1 Jn 1:8
All men created equal Declaration Acts 10:34, 17:26, Gal. 3:28,
1 Pet. 2:17
Judicial, legislative, and executive branches Constitution Isa.
33:22
Religious freedom First Amendment 1 Tim. 2:1-2
Church protected from state control (& taxation), but church to
influence the state First Amendment Dt. 17:18-20, 1 Kgs.
3:28, Ez. 7:24, Neh. 8:2, 1 Sam. 7:15-10:27, 15:10-31, 2 Sam. 12:1-18,
Mat. 14:3-4, Lk. 3:7-14, 11:52, Acts. 4:26-29
Federalist Democracy/States' Rights/Republicanism
Constitution Ex. 18:21-22, Dt. 1:13, Jud. 8:22, 9:6, 1 Sam.
8, 2 Sam. 16:18, 2 Kgs. 14:21, Pr. 11:14, 24:6
Bottoms up government, Self-control, Limited federal powers First,
Second, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments Mat. 18:15-18, Gal. 5:16-26, 1
Cor. 6:1-11, 1 Tim. 3:1-5, Tit. 2:1-8
Establish justice Declaration Ex. 23:1-9, Lev. 19:15, Dt.
1:17, 24:17-19, 1 Sam. 8:3, 2 Sam. 8:15, Mic. 6:8, Rom. 13:4
Fair trial with witnesses Sixth Amendment Ex. 20:16, Dt.
19:15, Pr. 24:28, 25:18, Mat. 18:16
Private property rights Fifth Amendment Ex. 20:15,17
Biblical liberty, Free enterprise Declaration Lev. 25:10,
Jn. 8:36, 2 Cor. 3:17, Gal. 5:1, James 1:25, 1 Pet. 2:16
Creation not evolution Declaration Gen. 1:1
Biblical capitalism not Darwinian capitalism (service and fair play
over strict survival of the fittest) Anti-trust laws Ex.
20:17, Mat. 20:26, 25:14-30, 2 Thes. 3:6-15, 1 Pet. 2:16
Importance of the traditional family State sodomy laws, few reasons
for divorce Ex. 20:12,14, Mat. 19:1-12, Mk. 10:2-12, Rom.
1:18-2:16, 1 Cor. 7:1-40
Religious education encouraged Northwest Ordinance Dt. 6:4-7, Pr.
22:6, Mat. 18:6, Eph. 6:4
Servanthood not political power Concept of public servant
Ex. 18:21, Rom. 13:4, Php. 2:7
Sabbath day holy "Blue laws" Ex. 20:8
Restitution Restitution laws Lev. 6:1-5, Num. 5:5-7, Mat.
5:23-2
Uncle Sam
wrote:
>
>"Uncle Sam" <pat...@concord.bz> wrote in message
>news:p375s1hh82vbfgk6p...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 23:15:03 -0700, grandwazoo <gr...@nospam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Uncle Sam wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 12:52:11 -0600, Gray Shockley
>>>> <graysh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The Constitution doesn't say anything about "what" religion, it
>>>>>states, "religion".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gonna tell us *any religion* that has been established?
>>>>
>>>> Eh?
>>>>
>>>> Come on shitwad, knock yerself out.
>>>
>>>Get it right, "respecting an establishment of religion". It is not
>>>'establishing',
>>
>>
>> More circumlocition - NO STATE RELIGION(s) exist!
>
>Nor can government make any law respecting religion.
>
Nor have they.
Uncle Sam
wrote:
>Uncle Sam <pat...@concord.bz> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 07:38:20 +0100, Martin Smith
>><slee...@jetlag.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Uncle Sam wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 22:31:40 +0100, Martin Smith
>>>> <slee...@jetlag.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Uncle Sam wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 12:52:11 -0600, Gray Shockley
>>>>>><graysh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The Constitution doesn't say anything about "what" religion, it
>>>>>>>states, "religion".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Gonna tell us *any religion* that has been established?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Eh?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Come on shitwad, knock yerself out.
>>>>>
>>>>>The christian religian,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which one?
>>>
>>>All of them.
>>
>>Prove it.
>>
>>Where is the national STATE Lutheran HQ?
>
>You are so simple-minded.
You can't answer the question!!!!!!!!!!!
> Your remarks mean you think "establish"
>means create. It does mean create, but that isn't the only meaning.
>Establish also means validate.
Nope, the legal definition is NOT validate.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e038.htm
ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE - Portion of the First Amendment to the U.S.
Constituion that prohibits government from "establishing" a religion.
ESTABLISHED FEDERAL STANDARD - Any standard established by any agency
of the U.S. and presently in effect. 29 USC
>Government use of religious symbols,
>government granting tax-free status to churches, government use of
>prayer and benedictions, government mandating the words "under God" be
>added to the Pledge of Allegiance - all these serve to validate
>religions, all religions based on a deity. That *is* establishment of
>religion. It is unnecessary for the affected religions, and it makes
>the US less trusted in the rest of the world.
No single religion (s) is or are established.
>The US should clean its government house, making it purely secular.
>That doesn't mean politicians can't or shouldn't be religious people.
>It means the structure of government should be separate from all
>religions. It means legislation should be justified by secular
>argument, never by religious argument.
Forget WHO was credited with our rights???
The CREATOR, "natures God"!
Wise up nutcase.
Martin Smith
You can swallow your Nope, pal. That doesn't define establish. Establish
has multiple meanings, all related. My analysis is correct, and what I
wrote is what the argument is about. What you wrote is *not* what the
argument is about. The argument is about the principle of separation of
church and state, not just what it means, but why we should separate
churc and state. You don't get that, and that's why you can't contribute
anything to the argument.
Establish also means validate. Government use of religious symbols,
government granting tax-free status to churches, government use of
prayer and benedictions, government mandating the words "under God" be
added to the Pledge of Allegiance - all these serve to validate
religions, all religions based on a deity. That *is* establishment of
religion. It is unnecessary for the affected religions, and it makes
the US less trusted in the rest of the world.
The US should clean its government house, making it purely secular.
That doesn't mean politicians can't or shouldn't be religious people.
It means the structure of government should be separate from all
religions. It means legislation should be justified by secular
argument, never by religious argument.
That is what the argument over separation of church and state is about.
It isn't about establishment of a new religion. Obviously. Grow up.
mrmcafee(nospam)
Uncle Sam wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 11:32:10 -0700, "mrmcafee(nospam)"
> <"mrmcafee(nospam)"@cybertrails.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Uncle Sam wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 23:15:03 -0700, grandwazoo <gr...@nospam.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Uncle Sam wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 12:52:11 -0600, Gray Shockley
>>>>><graysh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>The Constitution doesn't say anything about "what" religion, it
>>>>>>states, "religion".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Gonna tell us *any religion* that has been established?
>>>>>
>>>>>Eh?
>>>>>
>>>>>Come on shitwad, knock yerself out.
>>>>
>>>>Get it right, "respecting an establishment of religion". It is not
>>>>'establishing',
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>More circumlocition - NO STATE RELIGION(s) exist!
>>
>>Good! That being the case, I guess we can quit putting references to God
>>on our state currency and in our patriotic oaths.
>
>
> Why?
>
> Wasn't this nation FOUNDED under GOD???
No. Not according to the Constitution. The Constitution, which is of
course, the founding charter of our current government, does not mention
God at all. The few references it does have pertaining to religion are
all restrictive in nature: no religious oaths can be required for
officeholders, no "law respecting an establishment of religion". It
really is pretty simple to understand. The government can not do
anything that either promotes or detracts from religion. It must be
silent on the topic. That means printing references to God on our money
and in our patriotic oaths should be unconstitutional. The only way it
remains to date is a court decision that declares such references are
not religious in nature but are rather cultural. An error in my opinion.
mrmcafee(nospam)
Uncle Sam wrote:
They had to make a law to get "In God We Trust" printed on our money.
That was a law respecting religion, wasn't it?
Uncle Sam
<slee...@jetlag.com> wrote:
W_R_O_N_G!!!!
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/commentary.aspx?id=15801
Rehnquist had a very different view of the establishment clause. “The
‘wall of separation between Church and State’ is a metaphor based on
bad history,” he wrote in 1985, “a metaphor which has proved useless
as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.”
Until now, the Rehnquist dismissal of Mr. Jefferson’s wall has been a
minority view on the Supreme Court. Beginning in the late 1940s, the
Court majority has frequently invoked Jefferson (and James Madison) in
support of an establishment clause that strongly separates church from
state. Sometimes the wall was high and impregnable, as in the
decisions striking down state-sponsored religious exercises in public
schools. Other times it was low and porous as in the school-voucher
ruling. But through it all the wall still stood — upholding the
principle that the establishment clause (“Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion”) keeps the government from
favoring one religion over another, or religion over non-religion.
By contrast, Rehnquist had a hard time finding “separation of church
and state” anywhere in the First Amendment. In his reading of history,
the establishment clause was intended only to prevent the
establishment of a national church and to stop the federal government
from asserting a preference for one religious denomination over
others. Among other things, this interpretation would mean that the
government could aid religion — as long as it didn’t discriminate
among religions.
>What you wrote is *not* what the
>argument is about. The argument is about the principle of separation of
>church and state, not just what it means, but why we should separate
>churc and state. You don't get that, and that's why you can't contribute
>anything to the argument.
There is no melding of church and state - period.
>Establish also means validate. Government use of religious symbols,
>government granting tax-free status to churches, government use of
>prayer and benedictions, government mandating the words "under God" be
>added to the Pledge of Allegiance - all these serve to validate
>religions, all religions based on a deity. That *is* establishment of
>religion.
Nope it is not establishment of "A RELIGION"!
Uncle Sam
<"mrmcafee(nospam)"@cybertrails.com> wrote:
The DECLARATION, which UNDERLAYS the Constitution DOES!!!
The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one
people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with
another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and
equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle
them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they
should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness.
Uncle Sam
<"mrmcafee(nospam)"@cybertrails.com> wrote:
>
>
>Uncle Sam wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 11:50:56 -0700, "grandwazoo" <gr...@nospam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Uncle Sam" <pat...@concord.bz> wrote in message
>>>news:p375s1hh82vbfgk6p...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 23:15:03 -0700, grandwazoo <gr...@nospam.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Uncle Sam wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 12:52:11 -0600, Gray Shockley
>>>>>><graysh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The Constitution doesn't say anything about "what" religion, it
>>>>>>>states, "religion".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Gonna tell us *any religion* that has been established?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Eh?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Come on shitwad, knock yerself out.
>>>>>
>>>>>Get it right, "respecting an establishment of religion". It is not
>>>>>'establishing',
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>More circumlocition - NO STATE RELIGION(s) exist!
>>>
>>>Nor can government make any law respecting religion.
>>>
>>
>> Nor have they.
>
>They had to make a law to get "In God We Trust" printed on our money.
Oh wah!
Go barter then!
>That was a law respecting religion, wasn't it?
WHICH religion?
Martin Smith
I'm sorry, pal, but I'm not wrong. I hacve presented the argument twice
now. You can deny that's what the argument is about all you want, but
when you do that you just remove yourself from the argument. That's up
to you, but you can bet the argument will indeed continue without you.
That's probably a good thing, since you are not well informed.
Cary Kittrell
> jt62hrc...@4ax.com> <11367908...@news.commspeed.net> <p375s1hh82vbfgk6p...@4ax.com> <ZbSdnSIw8pa...@sedona.net> <nqo7s1ps1p5losjja...@4ax.com> <CZ-dnaHX6LA...@sedona.net>
> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Lines: 74
> X-Complaints-To: ab...@easynews.com
> X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 19:24:09 GMT
> Xref: news.arizona.edu alt.education:43602 az.politics:94735
Funny, I've never heard of a Supreme Court decision which
found some statute to be unDeclarationOfIndependential.
-- cary
mrmcafee(nospam)
The Declaration of Independence has nothing to do with our current
government under the Constitution. One declares a revolution, the other
establishes a government. One over throws law, the other establishes it.
Each stand independent of the other as two separate events.
mrmcafee(nospam)
Uncle Sam wrote:
The ones that have a God.
Uncle Sam
Uncle Sam
I'm sure.
Uncle Sam
<"mrmcafee(nospam)"@cybertrails.com> wrote:
It has to do with the PRINCIPLES and ROOT source of our RIGHTS!
Uncle Sam
<"mrmcafee(nospam)"@cybertrails.com> wrote:
Oh...more than one religion then?
DTA
"Martin Smith" <slee...@jetlag.com> wrote in message
news:11s83dm...@corp.supernews.com...
The dimwit you are arguing with has been told repeatedly that she is
absolutely wrong about the establishment clause. Establishment, btw, as used
in the constitution is considered a noun. Nothing else need be said to
defend the meaning since trolls generally need the word to be a verb to
support their definition, and it simply is not a verb.
Uncle Sam
No it is not, and that's a great observation.
Cary Kittrell
Well, I think we've just calibrated your level of intellectual
honesty as finely as anyone might ever require.
{snippage restored}
Funny, I've never heard of a Supreme Court decision which
found some statute to be unDeclarationOfIndependential.
These were some very bright old boys. If they felt the need
to work any or all of the language and concepts of the Declaration
of Independence directly into the Constitution, they were more
than capable of doing so. No one prevented thm.
They did not choose to do so with regard to any deity.
-- cary
Uncle Sam
(Cary Kittrell) wrote:
Funny, you've also never heard of a US legal decision which found that
English "common law" was violated, but it TOO underlays the
Constitution!
>These were some very bright old boys. If they felt the need
>to work any or all of the language and concepts of the Declaration
>of Independence directly into the Constitution, they were more
>than capable of doing so. No one prevented thm.
>
>They did not choose to do so with regard to any deity.
They did not NEED to, they had already cited Him with being the SOURCE
of our RIGHTS!
Martin Smith
I understand Rehnquist's opinion. As I said before, it is not what the
argument is about. Since you aren't participating in the argument, but
are only trying to divert it, I assume you have no input to the
discussion. Either contribute to the discussion, or drop out. Since you
appear not to understand the subject, I assume you're done.
Martin Smith
You mean Her, of course.
Uncle Sam
<slee...@jetlag.com> wrote:
Actually it IS what the argument is about - defining "establishment"!
> Since you aren't participating in the argument, but
>are only trying to divert it,
Oh really?
So a SCOTUS opinion is diversion?
> I assume you have no input to the
>discussion.
No, you WISH I had no input, because it blows your sorry ass out of
the water!
>Either contribute to the discussion, or drop out.
Kiss my ass.
> Since you
>appear not to understand the subject, I assume you're done.
No religion is established - PERIOD~!
Uncle Sam
If I did I'd have said so!
Bob LeChevalier
>>No. Not according to the Constitution. The Constitution, which is of
>>course, the founding charter of our current government, does not mention
>>God at all.
>
>The DECLARATION, which UNDERLAYS the Constitution DOES!!!
The Declaration does no such thing. Indeed the Constitution reflected
a bloodless COUNTER-revolution against the system established under
the Declaration, which we call the "Articles of Confederation"
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>It has to do with the PRINCIPLES and ROOT source of our RIGHTS!
Under our constitution, the principles and root source of EVERYTHING
in our government is "We the People". "We the People" ordained and
established the Constitution. God did not, and indeed had nothing to
do with it.
lojbab
Uncle Sam
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>Uncle Sam <pat...@concord.bz> wrote:
>>>No. Not according to the Constitution. The Constitution, which is of
>>>course, the founding charter of our current government, does not mention
>>>God at all.
>>
>>The DECLARATION, which UNDERLAYS the Constitution DOES!!!
>
>The Declaration does no such thing.
Sheesh, another historical revisionist!
Which came first?
Duh.
Uncle Sam
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>Uncle Sam <pat...@concord.bz> wrote:
>>It has to do with the PRINCIPLES and ROOT source of our RIGHTS!
>
>Under our constitution, the principles and root source of EVERYTHING
>in our government is "We the People".
Nope, "We the People" did not endow oursleves with certain
"inalienable rights"!
Dimwit.
Cary Kittrell
In fact, we did. Except that in practice they prove
to be nothing like "inalienable". Several dozen
lives will be taken without due process from United
States citizens today. You may hasten to reassure
their cooling corpses that they still have the right
to life, but I expect you'll find your audience
cold to your argument.
Presumably if God had been involved, He would have
had the ability to provide backups and guarantees along with
these so clearly alienable "rights" that We the People, being
finite, clearly lacked the power to provide.
But He did not, and thus He did not.
Incidentally, the last time I checked, Thomas Jefferson was not
widely regarded as a Prophet of God.
-- cary
Uncle Sam
(Cary Kittrell) wrote:
>In article <b6c8s152vdrjmtoho...@4ax.com> the hand @ATLM.ha writes:
>>
>> On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 17:05:31 -0500, Bob LeChevalier
>> <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>>
>> >Uncle Sam <pat...@concord.bz> wrote:
>> >>It has to do with the PRINCIPLES and ROOT source of our RIGHTS!
>> >
>> >Under our constitution, the principles and root source of EVERYTHING
>> >in our government is "We the People".
>>
>> Nope, "We the People" did not endow oursleves with certain
>> "inalienable rights"!
>>
>> Dimwit.
>
>In fact, we did.
Not what the framers said in the DOI, they cited the CREATOR!
<idiot rant deleted>
Martin Smith
You've given Rehnquist's opinion about establishment, not a definition
of establishment. And Thomas Jefferson disagreed. Thomas Jefferson knew
a lot more about it, since he was there at the time.
>>Since you aren't participating in the argument, but
>>are only trying to divert it,
>
>
> Oh really?
>
> So a SCOTUS opinion is diversion?
It wasn't a SCOTUS opinion. It was one justice's opinion. It was in the
minority. So, yes, you meant it as a diversion, because it isn't what
the argument is about. Either participate in the discussion or stop
trying to divert it.
Martin Smith
Then you are admitting establishment of religion. If you mean Him, and
you claim the founders meant Him, it is establishment of religion. The
belief that God exists and the belief that God is male, is religion, not
fact. To establish your claim is to establish religion, which is
unconstutional. You lose, thank God.
Uncle Sam
<slee...@jetlag.com> wrote:
It IS, for practical putrposes, a legal definition of establishment.
> And Thomas Jefferson disagreed. Thomas Jefferson knew
>a lot more about it, since he was there at the time.
And his was NOT the only opinion was it?
>>>Since you aren't participating in the argument, but
>>>are only trying to divert it,
>>
>>
>> Oh really?
>>
>> So a SCOTUS opinion is diversion?
>
>It wasn't a SCOTUS opinion. It was one justice's opinion. It was in the
>minority.
But it was an opinion.
Notice I did NOT say ruling.
>So, yes, you meant it as a diversion,
Sorry Kreskin, I MEANT IT as a real world example, NOT a diversion.
Cary Kittrell
Are you talking about the framer who wrote that bit, the who was
in Paris during the entire Constitutional convention?
I didn't know Thomas Jefferson got to tell God what He thinks.
-- cary
grandwazoo
> On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 11:52:18 -0700, "mrmcafee(nospam)"
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Uncle Sam" <pat...@concord.bz> wrote in message
>>>>news:p375s1hh82vbfgk6p...@4ax.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Uncle Sam wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 12:52:11 -0600, Gray Shockley
>>>>>>><graysh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The Constitution doesn't say anything about "what" religion, it
>>>>>>>>states, "religion".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Gonna tell us *any religion* that has been established?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Eh?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Come on shitwad, knock yerself out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>'establishing',
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>More circumlocition - NO STATE RELIGION(s) exist!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nor have they.
>>
>>They had to make a law to get "In God We Trust" printed on our money.
>
> Oh wah!
>
> Go barter then!
>
>>That was a law respecting religion, wasn't it?
>
> WHICH religion?
Catholic, Mormon, Lutheran, etc. are sects within the larger set. That's
true of Judaism. Reference to God is a reference to a religious belief.
Obviously, it does not refer to all religious beliefs or lack thereof. There
is a legal reference to 'god' as in acts of god, that usually means that the
damage is not covered.
Uncle Sam
(Cary Kittrell) wrote:
>In article <6hd8s1lt9obls8doi...@4ax.com> the hand @ATLM.ha writes:
>> On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 22:21:54 +0000 (UTC), ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu
>> (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <b6c8s152vdrjmtoho...@4ax.com> the hand @ATLM.ha writes:
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 17:05:31 -0500, Bob LeChevalier
>> >> <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Uncle Sam <pat...@concord.bz> wrote:
>> >> >>It has to do with the PRINCIPLES and ROOT source of our RIGHTS!
>> >> >
>> >> >Under our constitution, the principles and root source of EVERYTHING
>> >> >in our government is "We the People".
>> >>
>> >> Nope, "We the People" did not endow oursleves with certain
>> >> "inalienable rights"!
>> >>
>> >> Dimwit.
>> >
>> >In fact, we did.
>>
>> Not what the framers said in the DOI, they cited the CREATOR!
>
>Are you talking about the framer who wrote that bit
I'm talking about the DOI as adopted!
Uncle Sam
wrote:
It is?
Who's the head of the main church of "Christian" and where is it
located?
Uncle Sam
<slee...@jetlag.com> wrote:
Are you A FUCKING moron????
Go put your words in someone else's mouth, you lying asshole.
Cary Kittrell
You seem to have this curious reluctance to deal with more
than a small portion of any argument. So, shall we try again?
My point was twofold:
1) the "framer" who wrote the Declaration of Independence
was not a framer of the Constitution. In fact, he
was out of the country the entire time. And the
Constitution does not subsume, incorporate, refer to, or
in any way depend upon the Declaration of Independence.
They are two documents, separated by purpose, history,
authority, and authorship.
2) Thomas Jefferson had no more right to inform God
of God's obligations on this issue than did the
SS, by putting "Gott mit uns" on their belt
buckles, obligate Him to underwrite their own
dreadful program.
-- cary
Uncle Sam
(Cary Kittrell) wrote:
The DOI underlays the Constitution - period.
It underlays it regardless of who worked on it.
> 2) Thomas Jefferson had no more right to inform God
> of God's obligations on this issue than did the
> SS,
Godwin's Law, fuck off you piece of shit!
Cary Kittrell
If so, it's for reasons you seem totally unable to articulate.
Nor, for that matter, find a Constitutional scholar who
agrees.
>
> It underlays it regardless of who worked on it.
>
> > 2) Thomas Jefferson had no more right to inform God
> > of God's obligations on this issue than did the
> > SS,
>
> Godwin's Law, fuck off you piece of shit!
The choice was intentional: I do not believe your God is
under obligation to fulfill promises made on His behalf
by any human with a political ax to grind.
-- cary
Gray Shockley
Scissors cut paper.
++ gray
Uncle Sam
(Cary Kittrell) wrote:
Well now.
How precisely was theis Republic formed?
Think about it.
>Nor, for that matter, find a Constitutional scholar who
>agrees.
yawn.
>> It underlays it regardless of who worked on it.
>>
>> > 2) Thomas Jefferson had no more right to inform God
>> > of God's obligations on this issue than did the
>> > SS,
>>
>> Godwin's Law, fuck off you piece of shit!
>
>The choice was intentional: I do not believe your God
I don't believe yours.
mrmcafee(nospam)
Uncle Sam wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 13:12:37 -0700, "mrmcafee(nospam)"
>>The Declaration of Independence has nothing to do with our current
>>government
>
>
> It has to do with the PRINCIPLES and ROOT source of our RIGHTS!
They are two different and separate events separated by 15 years (for
the 1st Amendment), a long Revolutionary War, and a failed national
government. The founding of our current government occurred with the
Constitution, not any previous experience. The Constitution, on purpose,
makes no reference to God in any way, and mentions religion only in
restrictive terms, on purpose. Contrary to the fashion of the day, no
flowery appeal to a Higher Power nor even a prayer is contained in the
document that founds this nation yet you continue to deny the plain,
obvious truth. Our government was intended to be totally secular, devoid
of religious sentiment. That's what churches are for.
--
*******************
Michael R. McAfee
Mesa, AZ
*******************
mrmcafee(nospam)
Uncle Sam wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 13:14:06 -0700, "mrmcafee(nospam)"
> <"mrmcafee(nospam)"@cybertrails.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Uncle Sam wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 11:52:18 -0700, "mrmcafee(nospam)"
>>><"mrmcafee(nospam)"@cybertrails.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Uncle Sam wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 11:50:56 -0700, "grandwazoo" <gr...@nospam.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Uncle Sam" <pat...@concord.bz> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:p375s1hh82vbfgk6p...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 23:15:03 -0700, grandwazoo <gr...@nospam.com>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Uncle Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 12:52:11 -0600, Gray Shockley
>>>>>>>>><graysh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The Constitution doesn't say anything about "what" religion, it
>>>>>>>>>>states, "religion".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Gonna tell us *any religion* that has been established?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Eh?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Come on shitwad, knock yerself out.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Get it right, "respecting an establishment of religion". It is not
>>>>>>>>'establishing',
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>More circumlocition - NO STATE RELIGION(s) exist!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Nor can government make any law respecting religion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Nor have they.
>>>>
>>>>They had to make a law to get "In God We Trust" printed on our money.
>>>
>>>
>>>Oh wah!
>>>
>>>Go barter then!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>That was a law respecting religion, wasn't it?
>>>
>>>
>>>WHICH religion?
>>
>>The ones that have a God.
>
>
> Oh...more than one religion then?
Not in my view. I have a pretty wide view. Of course some people that
the Baptist and the Southern Baptist are two different religions, and
some people that the the members of the Polk Street Methodist Church in
Amarillo practice a different religion that the members of the 1st
Methodist Church of Lubbock. It just depends on what floats you boat,
Spammy. The point, though, is mute. One religion, many religions it
makes no difference. Our government should not promote any religion.
mrmcafee(nospam)
Uncle Sam wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 21:10:58 +0000 (UTC), ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu
> (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
>
>
>>In article <5j78s1pclh5vqamdl...@4ax.com> the hand @ATLM.ha writes:
>>
>>>On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 19:45:21 +0000 (UTC), ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu
>>>(Cary Kittrell) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article <fc28s11m60m2vkqto...@4ax.com> the hand @ATLM.ha writes:
>>>>
>>>>>jt62hrc...@4ax.com> <11367908...@news.commspeed.net> <p375s1hh82vbfgk6p...@4ax.com> <ZbSdnSIw8pa...@sedona.net> <nqo7s1ps1p5losjja...@4ax.com> <CZ-dnaHX6LA...@sedona.net>
>>>>>X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
>>>>>MIME-Version: 1.0
>>>>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>>>>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>>>>Lines: 74
>>>>>X-Complaints-To: ab...@easynews.com
>>>>>X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
>>>>>Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 19:24:09 GMT
>>>>>Xref: news.arizona.edu alt.education:43602 az.politics:94735
>>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 11:49:33 -0700, "mrmcafee(nospam)"
>>>>><"mrmcafee(nospam)"@cybertrails.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Uncle Sam wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 11:32:10 -0700, "mrmcafee(nospam)"
>>>>>>><"mrmcafee(nospam)"@cybertrails.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Uncle Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 23:15:03 -0700, grandwazoo <gr...@nospam.com>
>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Uncle Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 12:52:11 -0600, Gray Shockley
>>>>>>>>>>><graysh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>The Constitution doesn't say anything about "what" religion, it
>>>>>>>>>>>>states, "religion".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Gonna tell us *any religion* that has been established?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Eh?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Come on shitwad, knock yerself out.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Get it right, "respecting an establishment of religion". It is not
>>>>>>>>>>'establishing',
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>More circumlocition - NO STATE RELIGION(s) exist!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Good! That being the case, I guess we can quit putting references to God
>>>>>>>>on our state currency and in our patriotic oaths.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Why?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Wasn't this nation FOUNDED under GOD???
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No. Not according to the Constitution. The Constitution, which is of
>>>>>>course, the founding charter of our current government, does not mention
>>>>>>God at all.
>>>>>
>>>>>The DECLARATION, which UNDERLAYS the Constitution DOES!!!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Funny, I've never heard of a Supreme Court decision
>>>
>>>I'm sure.
>>
>>Well, I think we've just calibrated your level of intellectual
>>honesty as finely as anyone might ever require.
>>
>>{snippage restored}
>>
>> Funny, I've never heard of a Supreme Court decision which
>> found some statute to be unDeclarationOfIndependential.
>
>
> Funny, you've also never heard of a US legal decision which found that
> English "common law" was violated, but it TOO underlays the
> Constitution!
>
>
>>These were some very bright old boys. If they felt the need
>>to work any or all of the language and concepts of the Declaration
>>of Independence directly into the Constitution, they were more
>>than capable of doing so. No one prevented thm.
>>
>>They did not choose to do so with regard to any deity.
>
>
> They did not NEED to, they had already cited Him with being the SOURCE
> of our RIGHTS!
Spammy, that's just dumb! What need would there be to codify rights
already granted by .... GOD? I mean you just can't have a higher
authority that God, right? So if God granted us our civil rights, then
government would have no need to duplicate the effort.
Our rights are granted to us by us. They are a function of government,
and therefore had to be codified in the charter. God isn't going to do
much if President Bush violates your civil rights, but the Supreme Court
might.
Uncle Sam
<"mrmcafee(nospam)"@cybertrails.com> wrote:
15 vs. 230?
Wow, historical mind blast.
Uncle Sam
<"mrmcafee(nospam)"@cybertrails.com> wrote:
You are a prety good liar.
So which religion(s) was it?
Uncle Sam
<"mrmcafee(nospam)"@cybertrails.com> wrote:
Hey, what a question!
Possibly that MAN was creating a NATION!
That's manly stuff ya know...