Judge Refuses to Remove Ten Commandments Display
Dana
Judge Refuses to Remove Ten Commandments Display
(CNSNews.com) - Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore announced Thursday that he
will not remove a monument containing the Ten Commandments from the justice
building in Montgomery despite a federal court order to do so. "I have no
intention of removing the monument of the Ten Commandments and the moral
foundation of our law," Moore said at a press conference. "To do so would in
effect be a disestablishment of the justice system of this state. This I
cannot and will not do." Moore said he would file a writ of prohibition and
mandamus with the U.S. Supreme Court directing U.S. District Court Judge
Myron Thompson, who wrote the decision ordering the Ten Commandments'
removal, "to stop this wrongful interference with state government." If
approved, it would bar Thompson from attempting to remove the sculpture.
Moore's decision comes one day after the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
refused to reconsider a ruling that allows a 1920 Ten Commandments plaque to
remain on the facade of a suburban Philadelphia courthouse.
--
"The Declaration of Independence... [is the] declaratory charter of our
rights, and the rights of man."
-- Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), 3rd President of the United States
(1801-1809)
Daniel
RTO Trainer
wrote:
>http://www.cnsnews.com/ThisHour.asp
>Judge Refuses to Remove Ten Commandments Display
>
>(CNSNews.com) - Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore announced Thursday that he
>will not remove a monument containing the Ten Commandments from the justice
>building in Montgomery despite a federal court order to do so. "I have no
>intention of removing the monument of the Ten Commandments and the moral
>foundation of our law," Moore said at a press conference. "To do so would in
>effect be a disestablishment of the justice system of this state. This I
>cannot and will not do." Moore said he would file a writ of prohibition and
>mandamus with the U.S. Supreme Court directing U.S. District Court Judge
>Myron Thompson, who wrote the decision ordering the Ten Commandments'
>removal, "to stop this wrongful interference with state government." If
>approved, it would bar Thompson from attempting to remove the sculpture.
>Moore's decision comes one day after the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
>refused to reconsider a ruling that allows a 1920 Ten Commandments plaque to
>remain on the facade of a suburban Philadelphia courthouse.
Gonna have to remove the doors from the Courtroom of the US Supreme
Court....
--
"In this era of American triumph, only two institutions continue to resist the future: blue collar unions and our armed forces. The unions have a better case."
--Ralph Peters
SPC Robert White
31U, OKARNG
Commo Plt. HHC 45th eSB
Always Forward!
*****Begin Lemming Code Block*****
LIT\LSS d+(BDU) s+>s: a C+$ N++ aNG///LCC PS+ PE tv+ b++ e++>e++++
******End Lemming COde Block******
righ...@buttmaster.com
This is how it SHOULD read, BUTTMASTER.
>Judge Refuses to Remove segregation laws.........
>
>(CNSNews.com) - Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore announced Thursday that he
>will not follow desegregation laws despite a federal court order to do so. "I have no
>intention of desegregating upheld by the moral
>foundation of our law," Moore said at a press conference. "To do so would in
>effect be a disestablishment of the justice system of this state. This I
>cannot and will not do." Moore said he would file a writ of prohibition and
>mandamus with the U.S. Supreme Court directing U.S. District Court Judge
>Myron Thompson, who wrote the decision ordering the Ten Commandments'
>removal, "to stop this wrongful interference with state government." If
>approved, it would bar Thompson from attempting to desegregate Alabama
Your racist/homophobic bigot is certainly right about it "not being about the 10
commandments"
He specifically questioned the authority of federal power to force compliance with laws
interpreted by the USSC.upon state government
---------------------------------------------------
>ladies use my tongue for your pleasure
></groups?q=author:danaraffaniello%40worldnet.
>att.net&start=210&hl=en&lr=&ie=UT>F-8&selm=
>63j187%24nji%40bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net&rnum=226>
>swm very oral will orally worship any female that wishes to be worshipped.
>will kiss and lick your feet and butt .
>might be wiling to be your toilet paper if you
>are that aggressive
Brian
"Daniel" <sabot...@hot.rr.com> wrote in message
news:jfX_a.189870$xg5....@twister.austin.rr.com...
I still say people should read what the First Amendment actually says. No
where does it say anything about separation of church and state.
Brian
<righ...@buttmaster.com> wrote in message
news:89iojvc8gvegtvds4...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 17:57:01 -0800, "Dana" <your...@example.com> wrote:
>
>
> This is how it SHOULD read, BUTTMASTER.
>
> >Judge Refuses to Remove segregation laws.........
> >
> >(CNSNews.com) - Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore announced Thursday that
he
> >will not follow desegregation laws despite a federal court order to do
so. "I have no
> >intention of desegregating upheld by the moral
> >foundation of our law," Moore said at a press conference. "To do so would
in
> >effect be a disestablishment of the justice system of this state. This I
> >cannot and will not do." Moore said he would file a writ of prohibition
and
> >mandamus with the U.S. Supreme Court directing U.S. District Court Judge
> >Myron Thompson, who wrote the decision ordering the Ten Commandments'
> >removal, "to stop this wrongful interference with state government." If
> >approved, it would bar Thompson from attempting to desegregate Alabama
>
> Your racist/homophobic bigot is certainly right about it "not being about
the 10
> commandments"
>
> He specifically questioned the authority of federal power to force
compliance with laws
> interpreted by the USSC.upon state government
So the USSC is always right? Dred Scot anyone? Did you support their
decision in the Bush v. Gore case? I find it amazing how the left and the
right can both cite the USSC and demonize them in the same breath.
righ...@buttmaster.com
You ever complain to the "right" when they "cite the USSC", then screech and holler?
Probably not
But the USSC ruling regarding "states rights" has withstood the tests over decades,
including fighting a civil war.......and a war of civil rights
I DID mention that it was "not about the 10 commandments" as Moore himself clearly stated
in his public whine. Moore was predicating the entire justification on (albeit cloaked in
law stems from gods law), the theory that the Federal government did NOT have the right to
tell a state what to do (the states rights issue) and that HE (et al representatives of
the ALA government) had superior "rights" that the federal government could not broach.
That does NOT fall within the "moral" boundaries of a "dred scott", decision.
BTW
A prominent founder argued that the self-same "law" that Moore attempts to
use government to promote, isn't unique to some unprovable religious quackery.......but
rather a "common-sense" inherent in human character.
"The commandments carry no internal evidence of
divinity with them; they contain some good moral
precetps, such as any man qualified to be a
law-giver, or a legislator, cold produce himself,
whithout any recourse to supernatural intervention"
Thomas Paine; FOUNDER
The Fair and Balanced Weasel
wrote:
It says Congress shall make no rule regarding an establishment of
religion. In other words, the government is forbidden from promoting
religion.
>
Impeachments. Court appointments. Gerrymanderings. Recalls. Plane crashes.
Don't Republicans believe in honest elections any more?
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
Daniel
The Fair and Balanced Weasel
<bill....@us.army.mil> wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 17:57:01 -0800, "Dana" <your...@example.com>
>wrote:
>
>>http://www.cnsnews.com/ThisHour.asp
>>Judge Refuses to Remove Ten Commandments Display
>>
>>(CNSNews.com) - Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore announced Thursday that he
>>will not remove a monument containing the Ten Commandments from the justice
>>building in Montgomery despite a federal court order to do so. "I have no
>>intention of removing the monument of the Ten Commandments and the moral
>>foundation of our law," Moore said at a press conference. "To do so would in
>>effect be a disestablishment of the justice system of this state. This I
>>cannot and will not do." Moore said he would file a writ of prohibition and
>>mandamus with the U.S. Supreme Court directing U.S. District Court Judge
>>Myron Thompson, who wrote the decision ordering the Ten Commandments'
>>removal, "to stop this wrongful interference with state government." If
>>approved, it would bar Thompson from attempting to remove the sculpture.
>>Moore's decision comes one day after the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
>>refused to reconsider a ruling that allows a 1920 Ten Commandments plaque to
>>remain on the facade of a suburban Philadelphia courthouse.
>
>
>Gonna have to remove the doors from the Courtroom of the US Supreme
>Court....
Not about to make the silly claim that they have the ten commandments
on the doors, are you? That canard got started because there is a
freize over the portal that portrays lawgivers--including Hammarabi,
Mohammed, King John and Moses, holding tablets.
Moore is an ass. Six of the commandments would be found
unconstitutional if someone were daft enought to try and make them
law. Doesn't sound like much of a moral basis, does it?
Brian
"The Fair and Balanced Weasel" <zeppn...@finestplanet.com> wrote in
message news:a8lojvsu78j8uosaj...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 22:57:59 -0400, "Brian" <blon...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Daniel" <sabot...@hot.rr.com> wrote in message
> >news:jfX_a.189870$xg5....@twister.austin.rr.com...
> >>
> >> "Dana" <your...@example.com> wrote in message
> >> news:vjof51l...@corp.supernews.com...
> >> > http://www.cnsnews.com/ThisHour.asp
> >> > Judge Refuses to Remove Ten Commandments Display
> >>
> >>
> >> good.
> >
> >I still say people should read what the First Amendment actually says.
No
> >where does it say anything about separation of church and state.
>
> It says Congress shall make no rule regarding an establishment of
> religion. In other words, the government is forbidden from promoting
> religion.
That means there will not be a state religion which is not the same thing.
Joni Rathbun
No it doesn't. It says they will make no laws respecting an
establishment of religion.
If it just meant they wouldn't establish a religion, they would have
said so.
Daniel
"The Fair and Balanced Weasel" <zeppn...@finestplanet.com> wrote in
message news:a8lojvsu78j8uosaj...@4ax.com...
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Daniel" <sabot...@hot.rr.com> wrote in message
> >news:jfX_a.189870$xg5....@twister.austin.rr.com...
> >>
> >> "Dana" <your...@example.com> wrote in message
> >> news:vjof51l...@corp.supernews.com...
> >> > http://www.cnsnews.com/ThisHour.asp
> >> > Judge Refuses to Remove Ten Commandments Display
> >>
> >>
> >> good.
> >
> >I still say people should read what the First Amendment actually says.
No
> >where does it say anything about separation of church and state.
>
> It says Congress shall make no rule regarding an establishment of
> religion. In other words, the government is forbidden from promoting
> religion.
> >
>
>
> Impeachments. Court appointments. Gerrymanderings. Recalls. Plane
crashes.
> Don't Republicans believe in honest elections any more?
just had one in 2000. what are you talking about?
Brian
"Joni Rathbun" <jrat...@orednet.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.030814...@lab.oregonvos.net...
The exact wording is "Congress shall make no law respecting the
establishment of religion." This means exactly that. The establishment of
a state sponsored national religion is prohibited.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/01.html#1
During House debate, Madison told his fellow Members that ''he apprehended
the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a
religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law."
Here is the USSC:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=343&invol=306
"The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every and all respects
there shall be a separation of Church and State. Rather, it studiously
defines the manner, the specific ways, in which there shall be no concert or
union or dependency one on the other. That is the common sense of the
matter. Otherwise the state and religion would be aliens to each other -
hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly. Churches could not be required to
pay even property taxes. Municipalities would not be permitted to render
police or fire protection to religious groups. Policemen who helped
parishioners into their places of worship would violate the Constitution.
Prayers in our legislative halls; the appeals to the Almighty in the
messages of the Chief Executive; the proclamations making Thanksgiving Day a
holiday; "so help me God" in our courtroom oaths - these and all other
references to the Almighty that run through our laws, our public rituals,
our ceremonies would be flouting the First Amendment. A fastidious atheist
or agnostic could even object to the supplication with which the Court opens
each session: 'God save the United States and this Honorable Court.'"
-Supreme Court Justice Douglas, 1952
Carol Lee Smith
> > >I still say people should read what the First Amendment actually says.
> > >No where does it say anything about separation of church and state.
> > It says Congress shall make no rule regarding an establishment of
> > religion. In other words, the government is forbidden from promoting
> > religion.
> That means there will not be a state religion which is not the same thing.
MYTH: Separation of church and state is not in the U.S. Constitution.
FACT: It is true that the literal phrase "separation of church and state"
does not appear in the Constitution, but that does not mean the concept
isn't there. The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof...."
What does that mean? A little history is helpful: In an 1802 letter to the
Danbury (Conn.) Baptist Association, Thomas Jefferson, then president,
declared that the American people through the First Amendment had erected
a "wall of separation between church and state." (Colonial religious
liberty pioneer Roger Williams used a similar phrase 150 years earlier.)
Jefferson, however, was not the only leading figure of the
post-revolutionary period to use the term separation. James Madison,
considered to be the Father of the Constitution, said in an 1819 letter,
"[T]he number, the industry and the morality of the priesthood, and the
devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total
separation of the church and state." In an earlier, undated essay
(probably early 1800s), Madison wrote, "Strongly guarded...is the
separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the
United States."
As eminent church-state scholar Leo Pfeffer notes in his book, Church,
State and Freedom, "It is true, of course, that the phrase 'separation of
church and state' does not appear in the Constitution. But it was
inevitable that some convenient term should come into existence to
verbalize a principle so clearly and widely held by the American
people....[T]he right to a fair trial is generally accepted to be a
constitutional principle; yet the term 'fair trial' is not found in the
Constitution. To bring the point even closer home, who would deny that
'religious liberty' is a constitutional principle? Yet that phrase too is
not in the Constitution. The universal acceptance which all these terms,
including 'separation of church and state,' have received in America would
seem to confirm rather than disparage their reality as basic American
democratic principles."
Thus, it is entirely appropriate to speak of the "constitutional principle
of church-state separation" since that phrase summarizes what the First
Amendment's religion clauses do-they separate church and state.
Courtesy of AU
Shrub's Stub
<blon...@comcast.net> had posted some drivel on Fri, 15 Aug 2003 04:48:56
GMT
> The exact wording is "Congress shall make no law respecting the
> establishment of religion." This means exactly that. The establishment of
> a state sponsored national religion is prohibited.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances
Now putting up the 10 commandments, which is a Christian belief, is
respecting an establishment of religion. I don't see them putting up the
Islamic commandments, or the Wiccan Crede of "An it do no harm, do as ye
will"
If they are going to put one up, they should put ALL of them up.
Shrub's Stub
GMT
You think nobody reads when you post a USSC descision, or is it only right
when it supports your views?
Dana
"The Fair and Balanced Weasel" <zeppn...@finestplanet.com> wrote in
message news:a8lojvsu78j8uosaj...@4ax.com...
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Daniel" <sabot...@hot.rr.com> wrote in message
> >news:jfX_a.189870$xg5....@twister.austin.rr.com...
> >>
> >> "Dana" <your...@example.com> wrote in message
> >> news:vjof51l...@corp.supernews.com...
> >> > http://www.cnsnews.com/ThisHour.asp
> >> > Judge Refuses to Remove Ten Commandments Display
> >>
> >>
> >> good.
> >
> >I still say people should read what the First Amendment actually says.
No
> >where does it say anything about separation of church and state.
>
> It says Congress shall make no rule regarding an establishment of
> religion. In other words, the government is forbidden from promoting
> religion.
Nice try but you are wrong. Try again.
Dana
"Joni Rathbun" <jrat...@orednet.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.030814...@lab.oregonvos.net...
>
Which is the establishment of a state religion, which neither the feds nor
any of the state governments are trying to do.
>
> If it just meant they wouldn't establish a religion, they would have
> said so.
They did.
Just like the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.
>
>
>
>
>
Arne Langsetmo
>
> http://www.cnsnews.com/ThisHour.asp
> Judge Refuses to Remove Ten Commandments Display
>
> (CNSNews.com) - Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore announced Thursday that he
> will not remove a monument containing the Ten Commandments from the justice
> building in Montgomery despite a federal court order to do so. "I have no
> intention of removing the monument of the Ten Commandments and the moral
> foundation of our law," Moore said at a press conference. "To do so would in
> effect be a disestablishment of the justice system of this state. This I
> cannot and will not do." Moore said he would file a writ of prohibition and
> mandamus with the U.S. Supreme Court directing U.S. District Court Judge
> Myron Thompson, who wrote the decision ordering the Ten Commandments'
Shows how much Moore knows. He can't file such a "writ .. of mandamus".
He can only petition the U.S. Supreme Court to issue such a writ.
[snip further nonsense]
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
Dana
"Shrub's Stub" <anti...@spigotspam.biz> wrote in message
news:Xns93D838D838A0...@216.168.3.44...
> Wading in the muck of alt.politics.republicans, I noticed that "Brian"
> <blon...@comcast.net> had posted some drivel on Fri, 15 Aug 2003
04:48:56
> GMT
>
> > The exact wording is "Congress shall make no law respecting the
> > establishment of religion." This means exactly that. The establishment
of
> > a state sponsored national religion is prohibited.
>
>
> Amendment I
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
> prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or
> of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
> petition the government for a redress of grievances
>
> Now putting up the 10 commandments, which is a Christian belief, is
> respecting an establishment of religion.
No it is not. There is no establishment of religion by the state simply by
having the 10 commandments displayed on state buildings.
Carol Lee Smith
> Here is the USSC:
> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=343&invol=306
Where it says:
There is much talk of the separation of Church and State in the history of
the Bill of Rights and in the decisions clustering around the First
Amendment. See Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 ; McCollum v.
Board of Education, supra. There cannot be the slightest doubt that the
First Amendment reflects the philosophy that Church and State should be
separated. And so far as interference with the "free exercise" of religion
and an "establishment" of religion are concerned, the separation must be
complete and unequivocal. The First Amendment within the scope of its
coverage permits no exception; the prohibition is absolute. ...
Government may not finance religious groups nor undertake religious
instruction nor blend secular and sectarian education nor use secular
institutions to force one or some religion on any person. ...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am aware that our McCollum decision on separation of Church and State
has been subjected to a most searching examination throughout the country.
Probably few opinions from this Court in recent years have attracted more
attention or stirred wider debate. Our insistence on "a wall between
Church and State which must be kept high and impregnable" has seemed to
some a correct exposition of the philosophy and a true interpretation of
the language of the First Amendment to which we should strictly adhere.
...Difficulty of decision in the hypothetical situations mentioned by the
Court, but not now before us, should not confuse the issues in this case.
Here the sole question is whether New York can use its compulsory
education laws to help religious sects get attendants presumably too
unenthusiastic to go unless moved to do so by the pressure of this state
machinery. That this is the plan, purpose, design and consequence of the
New York program cannot be denied. The state thus makes religious sects
beneficiaries of its power to compel children to attend secular schools.
Any use of such coercive power by the state to help or hinder some
religious sects or to prefer all religious sects over nonbelievers or vice
versa is just what I think the First Amendment forbids. In considering
whether a state has entered this forbidden field the question is not
whether it has entered too far but whether it has entered at all. New York
is manipulating its compulsory education laws to help religious sects get
pupils. This is not separation but combination of Church and State.
--Mr. Justice Black, dissenting
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every and all respects
> there shall be a separation of Church and State. Rather, it studiously
> defines the manner, the specific ways, in which there shall be no concert or
> union or dependency one on the other. That is the common sense of the
> matter. Otherwise the state and religion would be aliens to each other -
> hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly. Churches could not be required to
> pay even property taxes. Municipalities would not be permitted to render
> police or fire protection to religious groups. Policemen who helped
> parishioners into their places of worship would violate the Constitution.
> Prayers in our legislative halls; the appeals to the Almighty in the
> messages of the Chief Executive; the proclamations making Thanksgiving Day a
> holiday; "so help me God" in our courtroom oaths - these and all other
> references to the Almighty that run through our laws, our public rituals,
> our ceremonies would be flouting the First Amendment. A fastidious atheist
> or agnostic could even object to the supplication with which the Court opens
> each session: 'God save the United States and this Honorable Court.'"
>
> -Supreme Court Justice Douglas, 1952
>
>
>
>
"All religions are founded on the fear of the many and the cleverness of
the few." -- Marie Henri Beyle (Stendhal)
RTO Trainer
Written out? No. A depiction of tablets with the roman numerals 1
through 10 on them most certainly are there.
>That canard got started because there is a
>freize over the portal that portrays lawgivers--including Hammarabi,
>Mohammed, King John and Moses, holding tablets.
>
Differnt bit. You left out Confucious and Solon.
>Moore is an ass. Six of the commandments would be found
>unconstitutional if someone were daft enought to try and make them
>law. Doesn't sound like much of a moral basis, does it?
>
>Impeachments. Court appointments. Gerrymanderings. Recalls. Plane crashes.
>Don't Republicans believe in honest elections any more?
You presume to know my mind from what I posted?
Carol Lee Smith
> >Not about to make the silly claim that they have the ten commandments
> >on the doors, are you?
> Written out? No. A depiction of tablets with the roman numerals 1
> through 10 on them most certainly are there.
http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/arg8c.htm
http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/arg8.htm
This is most interesting:
"-Directly above the Bench are two central figures, depicting Majesty of
the Law and Power of Government. The group at the far left represents
Safeguard of the Rights of the People, and Genii of Wisdom and Statecraft.
The far right group represents the Defense of Human Rights. -To the right
is a procession of historical lawgivers including: Menes, Hammurabi,
Moses, Solomon, Lycurgus, Solon, Draco, Confucius and Augustus. They are
flanked by figures symbolizing Fame and History. -To the left are later
historical lawgivers including Napoleon, John Marshall, William
Blackstone, Hugo Grotius, Saint Louis, King John, Charlemagne, Mohammed
and Justinian. Figures representing Liberty and Peace and Philosophy
appear at either end. -Symbolized on the back wall frieze is Justice with
the winged female figure of Divine Inspiration, flanked by Wisdom and
Truth. At the far left the Powers of Good are shown, representing
Security, Harmony, Peace, Charity, and Defense of Virtue. At the far right
the Powers of Evil are represented by Corruption, Slander, Deceit, and
Despotic Power."
http://www.usscplus.com/info/building.htm
Please note that Mohammed is depicted. Consider what an insult this is to
Muslims.
Roger
Why does he promote the 10 commandments? Does he think people should follow
them, or should they ignore them the way he ignores judge's orders?
"Dana" <your...@example.com> wrote in message
news:vjof51l...@corp.supernews.com...
Carol Lee Smith
> "Joni Rathbun" <jrat...@orednet.org> wrote in message
> > No it doesn't. It says they will make no laws respecting an
> > establishment of religion.
> Which is the establishment of a state religion, which neither the feds nor
> any of the state governments are trying to do.
> > If it just meant they wouldn't establish a religion, they would have
> > said so.
> They did.
> Just like the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MYTH: The First Amendment's religion clauses were intended only to prevent
the establishment of a national church.
FACT: If all the framers wanted to do was ban a national church, they had
plenty of opportunities to state exactly that in the First Amendment. In
fact, an early draft of the First Amendment read in part, "The civil
rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief, nor shall
any national religion be established...." This draft was rejected.
Following extensive debate, the language found in the First Amendment
today was settled on.
The historical record indicates that the framers wanted the First
Amendment to ban not only establishment of a single church but also
"multiple establishments," that is, a system by which the government funds
many religions on an equal basis.
A good overview of the development of the language of the First Amendment
is found in scholar John M. Swomley's 1987 book Religious Liberty and the
Secular State. Swomley shows that during the House of Representatives'
debate on the language of the religion clauses, members specifically
rejected a version reading, "Congress shall make no law establishing any
particular denomination in preference to another...." The founders wanted
to bar all religious establishments; they left no room for
"non-preferentialism," the view touted by today's accommodationists that
government can aid religion as long as it assists all religions equally.
(The Senate likewise rejected three versions of the First Amendment that
would have permitted non-preferential support for religion.)
MYTH: The First Amendment was intended to keep the state from interfering
with the church, not to bar religious groups from co-opting the
government.
FACT: Jefferson and Madison held an expansive view of the First Amendment,
arguing that church-state separation would protect both religion and
government.
Madison specifically feared that a small group of powerful churches would
join together and seek establishment or special favors from the
government. To prevent this from happening, Madison spoke of the
desirability of a "multiplicity of sects" that would guard against
government favoritism.
Jefferson and Madison did not see church-state separation as an "either
or" proposition or argue that one institution needed greater protection
than the other. As historian Garry Wills points out in his 1990 book Under
God, Jefferson believed that no worthy religion would seek the power of
the state to coerce belief. In his notes he argued that disestablishment
would strengthen religion, holding that it would "oblige its ministers to
be industrious [and] exemplary." The state likewise was degraded by an
established faith, Jefferson asserted, because establishment made it a
partner in a system based on bribery of religion.
Madison also argued that establishment was no friend to religion or the
state. He insisted that civil society would be hindered by establishment,
charging that attempts to enforce religious belief by law would weaken
government. In his 1785 Memorial and Remonstrance, Madison stated flatly
that "Religion is not helped by establishment, but is hurt by it."
--Courtesy of AU
Carol Lee Smith
> >That canard got started because there is a
> >freize over the portal that portrays lawgivers--including Hammarabi,
> >Mohammed, King John and Moses, holding tablets.
> Differnt bit. You left out Confucious and Solon.
<<Menes, Hammurabi, Moses, Solomon, Lycurgus, Solon, Draco, Confucius and
Augustus They are flanked by figures symbolizing Fame and History.
To the left are historical lawyers of the Christian era: Napoleon, John
Marshall, William Blackstone, Hugo Grotius, Saint Louis, King John,
Charlemagne, Mohammed and Justinian. Figures representing Liberty and
Peace and Philosophy appear at either end.
Symbolized on the back wall frieze is Justice with the winged female
figure of Divine Inspiration, flanked by Wisdom and Truth. At the far left
the Powers of Good are shown, representing Security, Harmony, Peace,
Charity, and Defense of Virtue. At the far right the Powers of Evil are
represented by Corruption, Slander, Deceit, and Despotic Power.>>
http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/butowsky2/constitution9.htm
> >Moore is an ass. Six of the commandments would be found
> >unconstitutional if someone were daft enought to try and make them
> >law. Doesn't sound like much of a moral basis, does it?
> >
> >Impeachments. Court appointments. Gerrymanderings. Recalls. Plane crashes.
> >Don't Republicans believe in honest elections any more?
>
>
> You presume to know my mind from what I posted?
> --
> "In this era of American triumph, only two institutions continue to resist the future: blue collar unions and our armed forces. The unions have a better case."
> --Ralph Peters
> SPC Robert White
> 31U, OKARNG
> Commo Plt. HHC 45th eSB
> Always Forward!
>
> *****Begin Lemming Code Block*****
> LIT\LSS d+(BDU) s+>s: a C+$ N++ aNG///LCC PS+ PE tv+ b++ e++>e++++
> ******End Lemming COde Block******
>
>
>
"All religions are founded on the fear of the many and the cleverness of
Carol Lee Smith
> A judge that won't follow a judge's order.
> Why does he promote the 10 commandments? Does he think people should follow
> them, or should they ignore them the way he ignores judge's orders?
I do think he wants to force his particular deity on everyone else--thou
shalt have no other gods before me.
That is unconstitutional.
Roger
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.103081...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
Yup. If he was worried about himself or his family, he could have put that
monstrosity in his house or on his lawn or in his courthouse office. He
wants to force his beliefs on others.
It's like the school prayer issue. Parents make sure their kids pray outside
of school, but they want to make sure all the other kids pray too.
Here's an idea: worry about your own damn self and let the rest of us worry
about our own damn selves.
Roger
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.103081...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
Which is why it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of
religion" and not "an establishment of a religion".
Carol Lee Smith
> >Not about to make the silly claim that they have the ten commandments
> >on the doors, are you?
>
> Written out? No. A depiction of tablets with the roman numerals 1
> through 10 on them most certainly are there.
There is more information here, including links to photos:
Gray Shockley
(in message <Pine.OSF.3.96.103081...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu>):
> On Fri, 15 Aug 2003, Roger wrote:
>
>> A judge that won't follow a judge's order.
>
>> Why does he promote the 10 commandments? Does he think people should follow
>> them, or should they ignore them the way he ignores judge's orders?
>
> I do think he wants to force his particular deity on everyone else
I think he's running for governor (or the House or the Senate - in D.C. - not
a lowly state job).
Gray Shockley
-------------------------------------------------
Pain is evitable but suffering is optional.
> --thou shalt have no other gods before me.
>
> That is unconstitutional.
>
Joni Rathbun
You left out the last few words of the quote. I wonder why.
"...nor compel men to worship God in any Manner contrary to their
conscience."
If you want to know how Madison felt about state and religion, you should
read his "Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments."
>
> Here is the USSC:
>
> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=343&invol=306
>
> "The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every and all respects
> there shall be a separation of Church and State. Rather, it studiously
> defines the manner, the specific ways, in which there shall be no concert or
> union or dependency one on the other. That is the common sense of the
> matter. Otherwise the state and religion would be aliens to each other -
> hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly. Churches could not be required to
> pay even property taxes. Municipalities would not be permitted to render
> police or fire protection to religious groups. Policemen who helped
> parishioners into their places of worship would violate the Constitution.
> Prayers in our legislative halls; the appeals to the Almighty in the
> messages of the Chief Executive; the proclamations making Thanksgiving Day a
> holiday; "so help me God" in our courtroom oaths - these and all other
> references to the Almighty that run through our laws, our public rituals,
> our ceremonies would be flouting the First Amendment. A fastidious atheist
> or agnostic could even object to the supplication with which the Court opens
> each session: 'God save the United States and this Honorable Court.'"
>
> -Supreme Court Justice Douglas, 1952
>
And a few short years later they determined school prayer was indeed
unconstitutional....
Gray Shockley
(in message <Pine.LNX.4.44.030814...@lab.oregonvos.net>):
>> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/01.html#1
>>
>> During House debate, Madison told his fellow Members that ''he apprehended
>> the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a
>> religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law."
>
> You left out the last few words of the quote. I wonder why.
> "...nor compel men to worship God in any Manner contrary to their
> conscience."
Thanks for that info. I went and looked up the ref and it might be
"interesting" to just quote the whole footnote, paying especial attention to
the last sentence.
--------------------------------------------------------
[Footnote 5] During House debate, Madison told his fellow Members that ''he
apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not
establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor
compel men to worship God in any Manner contrary to their conscience.'' 1
Annals of Congress 730 (August 15, 1789). That his conception of
''establishment'' was quite broad is revealed in his veto as President in
1811 of a bill which in granting land reserved a parcel for a Baptist Church
in Salem, Mississippi; the action, explained President Madison, ''comprises a
principle and precedent for the appropriation of funds of the United States
for the use and support of religious societies, contrary to the article of
the Constitution which declares that 'Congress shall make no law respecting a
religious establishment.''' 8 The Writings of James Madison (G. Hunt. ed.)
132-33 (1904). Madison's views were no doubt influenced by the fight in the
Virginia legislature in 1784-1785 in which he successfully led the opposition
to a tax to support teachers of religion in Virginia and in the course of
which he drafted his ''Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious
Assessments'' setting forth his thoughts. Id. at 183-91; I. Brant, James
Madison--The Nationalist 1780-1787, 343-55 (1948). Acting on the momentum of
this effort, Madison secured passage of Jefferson's ''Bill for Religious
Liberty''. Id. at 354; D. Malone, Jefferson the Virginian 274-280 (1948). The
theme of the writings of both was that it was wrong to offer public support
of any religion in particular or of religion in general.
--------------------------------------------------------
[same URL as cited above]
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 17:57:01 -0800, "Dana" <your...@example.com>
>:|wrote:
>:|
>:|>http://www.cnsnews.com/ThisHour.asp
>:|>Judge Refuses to Remove Ten Commandments Display
>:|>
>:|>(CNSNews.com) - Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore announced Thursday that he
>:|>will not remove a monument containing the Ten Commandments from the justice
>:|>building in Montgomery despite a federal court order to do so. "I have no
>:|>intention of removing the monument of the Ten Commandments and the moral
>:|>foundation of our law," Moore said at a press conference. "To do so would in
>:|>effect be a disestablishment of the justice system of this state. This I
>:|>cannot and will not do." Moore said he would file a writ of prohibition and
>:|>mandamus with the U.S. Supreme Court directing U.S. District Court Judge
>:|>Myron Thompson, who wrote the decision ordering the Ten Commandments'
>:|>removal, "to stop this wrongful interference with state government." If
>:|>approved, it would bar Thompson from attempting to remove the sculpture.
>:|>Moore's decision comes one day after the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
>:|>refused to reconsider a ruling that allows a 1920 Ten Commandments plaque to
>:|>remain on the facade of a suburban Philadelphia courthouse.
>:|
>:|
>:|Gonna have to remove the doors from the Courtroom of the US Supreme
>:|Court....
Why?
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|I still say people should read what the First Amendment actually says. No
>:|where does it say anything about separation of church and state.
Actually it does.
To be totally correct what you need to say is the words *separation of
church and state* will not be found anywhere in the Constitution.
That is also irrelevant.
The concept, the principle of church state separation is found in the
unamended constitution and further reinforced with the religious clauses of
the BORs.
Roger
news:campjv03kr1asfode...@4ax.com...
The have tablets with the numbers 1-10 carved into them. No words. At the
bottom of the doors.
More info, including links to pictures:
http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/arg8a.htm
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|That means there will not be a state religion which is not the same thing.
Means more than that.
For instance:
The wording does not say:
Congress shall make no law making a state religion
Congress shall make no law establishing religion
Congress shall make no law establishing a state religion
Congress shall make no law establishing a national religion
What it does say is:
Congress shall make no law RESPECTING an establishment of religion, . . .
That is far broader.
***********************************************
" In recent discussions of religious freedom and Church-State separation in
the United States attention has been so much centered constitutionally on
the Bill of Rights that the importance of this Provision in the original
Constitution as a bulwark of Church-State separation has been largely
overlooked. As a matter of fact it was and is important in preventing
religious tests for Federal office--a provision later extended to all the
states. It went far in thwarting any State Church in the United States; for
it would be almost impossible to establish such a Church, since no Church
has more than a fifth of the population. Congress as constituted with men
and women from all the denominations could never unite in selecting any one
body for this privilege. This has been so evident from the time of the
founding of the government that it is one reason why the First Amendment
must be interpreted more broadly than merely as preventing the state
establishment of religion which had already been made almost impossible."
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: CHURCH AND STATE IN THE UNITED STATES, VOLUME I,
Anton Phelps Stokes, D.D., LL.D, Harper & Brothers Publishers (1950) page
527)
***********************************************
. . . it is clear that the amendment does not say, "Congress shall make no
law establishing religion," but does say "no law respecting an
establishment of religion." It therefore cannot be construed as
authorizing Congress to support religious institutions. [or religion, any
kind of religion.]
Religious Liberty and the Secular State, The Constitutional Context. John
M. Smomley.Prometheus Books, (1987) p. 49
***********************************************
[EMPHASIS ADDED]
The still more important fact is that the type of article used in the
establishment clause makes no difference. The First Amendment does not say
that Congress shall not establish a religion or create an establishment of
religion. It says Congress shall make no law RESPECTING an establishment of
religion. Whether "respecting" connotes honoring or concerning, the clause
means that Congress shall make no law on that subject THE BAN IS NOT JUST
ON ESTABLISHMENTS OF RELIGION BUT ON LAWS RESPECTING
THEM, A FACT THAT ALLOWS A LAW TO FALL SHORT OF CREATING AN ESTABLISHMENT
YET STILL BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
(SOURCE: The Establishment Clause, Religion and the First Amendment,
Leonard W. Levy, Second Edition, Revised, The University of North Carolina
Press, (1994) p. 118
***********************************************
Some Thoughts on Religion and Law
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/bthot-lr.htm"
***********************************************
Excerpt from The federalist Society For Law and Public Policy Studies.
Charitable Choice, Remarks of Professor Marci Hamilton
http://www.fed-soc.org/Publications/practicegroupnewsletters/PG%20Links/charchoicemh.htm
"They divided power among the three branches of the Federal
Government,
through Federal state separation of power, through Church state separation
of power, a division which is recognized in the Constitution even before
the First Amendment in the Religious Test Oath Clause."
***********************************************
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|The exact wording is "Congress shall make no law respecting the
>:|establishment of religion." This means exactly that. The establishment of
>:|a state sponsored national religion is prohibited.
>:|
>:|http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/01.html#1
So are a lot of other things:
ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE:
The Establishment Clause as defined by the USSC in Everson v. Bd of Ed,
1947
That is exactly why this was worded this way in 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.
*********************************************
The Establishment Clause
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/estclause.htm
************************************************
>:|
>:|During House debate, Madison told his fellow Members that ''he apprehended
>:|the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a
>:|religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law."
>:|
During House debate, Madison said:
AUGUST 15, 1789
Mr. MADISON said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that
Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation
of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their
conscience. Whether the words are necessary or not, he did not mean to say,
but they had been required by some of the state conventions, who seemed to
entertain an opinion, that under the clause of the Constitution, which gave
power to Congress to make all laws necessary and proper to carry into
execution the constitution, and the laws made under it, enabled them to
make laws of such a nature as might infringe the rights of conscience, and
establish a national religion; to prevent these effects he presumed the
amendment was intended, and he thought it as well expressed as the nature
of the language would admit.
Mr. MADISON thought, if the word 'National' was inserted before religion,
it would satisfy the minds of honorable gentlemen. He believed that the
people feared one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined
together, and establish a religion, to which they would compel others to
conform. He thought if the word 'National' was introduced, it would point
the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent.
Mr. MADISON withdrew his motion but observed that the words single 'no
National religion shall be established by law', did not apply that the
government was a national one; the question was then taken on MR.
LIVERMORE's motion, and passed in the affirmative 31 for it, and 20 against
it.(5)
*******************************************
Don't get too hung up on Madison's use of the word NATIONAL.
Fact is, and I can provide you with the documentation, Madison felt any
union between church and state, on the national level, including
congressional chaplains, for instance, created a NATIONAL religion.
Look at his three vetoes. What "national" religion were they establishing,
yet he vetoed them because they violated church state separation.
Madison's vetoes: Some of The First Official Meanings Assigned to The
Establishment Clause (1811)
http://candst.tripod.com/madvetos.htm
>:|Here is the USSC:
>:|
>:|http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=343&invol=306
>:|
>:|"The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every and all respects
>:|there shall be a separation of Church and State. Rather, it studiously
>:|defines the manner, the specific ways, in which there shall be no concert or
>:|union or dependency one on the other. That is the common sense of the
>:|matter. Otherwise the state and religion would be aliens to each other -
>:|hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly. Churches could not be required to
>:|pay even property taxes. Municipalities would not be permitted to render
>:|police or fire protection to religious groups. Policemen who helped
>:|parishioners into their places of worship would violate the Constitution.
>:|Prayers in our legislative halls; the appeals to the Almighty in the
>:|messages of the Chief Executive; the proclamations making Thanksgiving Day a
>:|holiday; "so help me God" in our courtroom oaths - these and all other
>:|references to the Almighty that run through our laws, our public rituals,
>:|our ceremonies would be flouting the First Amendment. A fastidious atheist
>:|or agnostic could even object to the supplication with which the Court opens
>:|each session: 'God save the United States and this Honorable Court.'"
>:|
>:|-Supreme Court Justice Douglas, 1952
Look at the date. Ceremonial Deism is on its way out as well it should be.
This was in answer to another, but it will work here as well.
****************************************************
kan...@hotmail.com (K C) wrote:
>:|--(-@
>:|
>:|Do you understand our first amendment religious liberty?
Yes I do.
>:|
>:|Let us take a historical trip to understand what the ban on the
>:|"establishment of religion" means in the first amendment.
>:|
>:|The actual words of the amendment are..
>:|
>:|"CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
>:|or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;.."
>:|
>:|So, what did the amendment writers mean? To understand, all you have
>:|to do is look at the debates taking place in the press and resolutions
>:|on religion by by the newly created states. This give you a clue to
>:|the demands of the American people that the Constitution writers
>:|sought to satisfy. After all, these demands are the basis of the
>:|laws, as the government was created to be "by the people."
Problem is, the above won't tell you much.
First of all, church state separation was achieved with the unamended
constitution.
Secondly, Madison relied very heavily on his experiences in Virginia during
the religious struggle of 1785-1786, Article 16 of the Virginia Declaration
of Rights. Jefferson's statute for religious freedom, the debates of the
Virginia ratifying convention and less on debates in other ratifying
conventions.
While he was aware of said debates and of the proposed amendments from
other states, and he considered them, there isn't much historical evidence
that those regarding religion played that much of a roll in his
deliberations which led to the religious language in the articles he
proposed to Congress on June 8, 1789.
*********************************************
June 8, 1789--first Federal Congress (Amendments-religious reference)
[House of Representatives]
(religious reference)
(James Madison speaking)
Fourthly, That in article 1st, section 5, between clauses 3 and 4, be
inserted these clauses, to wit:
The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief
or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the
full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext,
infringed.
(end of religious reference)
and
(religious reference)
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a
well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free
country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be
compelled to render military service in person.
(end of religious reference)
and
(religious reference)
Fifthly, That in article 1st, section 10, between clauses 1 and 2, be
inserted this clause, to wit:
No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of
the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.
(end of religious reference)
and
(religious reference)
Although I know whenever the great rights, the trial by jury, freedom of
the press, or liberty of conscience. come in question in that body, the
invasion of them is resisted by able advocates, yet their Magna Charta does
not contain any one provision for the security of those rights, respecting
which the people of America are most alarmed. The freedom of the press and
rights of conscience those choicest privileges of the people, are unguarded
in the British constitution.
(end of religious reference)
and
(religious reference)
I wish also, in revising the constitution, we may throw into that section,
which interdict the abuse of certain powers in the State Legislatures, some
other provisions of equal, if not greater importance than those already
made. The words, "No State shall pass any bill of attainder. ex post facto
law," &c. were wise and proper restrictions in the constitution. 1 think
there is more danger of those powers being abused by the State Governments
than by the Government of the United States. The same may be said of other
powers which they possess, if not controlled by the general principle, that
laws are unconstitutional which infringe the rights of the community. I
should therefore wish to extend this interdiction, and add, as I have
stated in the 5th resolution, that no State shall violate the equal right
of conscience, freedom of the press, or trial by jury in criminal cases;
because it is proper that every Government should be disarmed of powers
which trench upon those particular rights. I know, in some of the State
constitutions, the power of the Government is controlled by such a
declaration; but others are not. I cannot see any reason against obtaining
even a double security on those points; and nothing can give a more sincere
proof of the attachment of those who opposed this constitution to these
great and important rights, than to see them join in obtaining the security
I have now proposed; because it must he admitted, on all hands, that the
State Governments are as liable to attack the invaluable privileges as the
General Government is, and therefore ought to be as cautiously guarded
against.(1)
(end of religious reference)
***********************************
The Religious clauses only reinforced that separation. closed a potential
loop hole created by the "necessary and proper" language of the
Constitution.
Here are the debates that took place during the Constitutional convention,
during the ratification period and during the framing of the BORs:
***********************************************
MAY 29, 1787,
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, PHILADELPHIA, PENNA.
Mr. CHARLES PINCKNEY laid before the House the draft of a plan of
government, to be agreed upon between the free and independent States of
America:-
ART. VI. . . .The Legislature of the United States shall pass no law on the
subject of religion, nor touching or abridging the liberty of the press
[n]or shall the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus ever be suspended,
except in case of rebellion or invasion.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Debates on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution
in the Convention Held at Philadelphia in 1787, Jonathan Elliot, Vol. V.
Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company (1888) p 128-131. The Complete Bill
of Rights, The Drafts, Debates, Sources, and Origins, Edited by Neil H.
Cogan. Oxford University Press (1997) p 72)
(COMMENTARY:
The words. "Mr. P. plan." are omitted in the transcript, and what
purports to be the plan itself is here inserted.
Madison himself did not take a copy of the draft nor did Pinckney
furnish him one, as he did a copy of his speech which he Later delivered in
the Convention and which is printed as a part of the debates (session of
Monday. June 25). Many years later, in 1818, when John Quincy Adams. then
Secretary of State, was preparing the Journal of the Convention for
publication, he wrote to Pinckney, requesting a copy of his plan, end, in
compliance with this request Pinckney sent him what purported to be the
draft, but which appears to have been a copy of the report of the Committee
of Detail of August 6. 1787, with certain alterations and additions. The
alleged draft and Pinckney's letter transmitting it were written upon paper
bearing the water-mark. " Russell & Co. 1797."
The Pinckney draft was not debated; it was neither used in the
Committee of the Whole nor in the Convention. It was however referred to
the Committee of Detail, which appears to have made some use of it, as
exracts from it have been identified by J. Franklin Jameson and an outline
of it discovered by Andrew C. McLaughlin, among the papers and in the
handwriting of James Wilson, a delegate from Pennsylvania, deposited with
the Pennsylvania Historical Society. 995680---27-------9)
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Bicentennial Edition, Notes of the Debates in the
Federal Convention of 1787, Reported by James Madison, With an introduction
by Adrienne Koch. W. W. Morton & Company New York * London, Reissued as a
Norton paperback 1987, original introduction copyright 1966, Ohio
University Press, pp 33)
ADDITIONAL COMMENTARY:
See footnotes page 270 "The Constitution's Forgotten Religion Clause:
Reflections on the Article VI Religious Test Ban" by Daniel L. Dreisbach
Journal of Chruch and State, Volume 38 Spring 1996 Number 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TUESDAY AUGUST 30TH, 1787
IN CONVENTION (Philadelphia)
Mr. PINKNEY moved to add to the art:-"but no religious test shall ever be
required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the
authority of the U. States."
Mr. SHERMAN thought it unnecessary, the prevailing liberality being
sufficient security against such tests.
Mr. GOV. MORRIS and Gen. PINKNEY approved the motion. The motion was agreed
to nem: con: then the whole article; N.C. only no-& Maryland divided.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Bicentennial Edition, Notes of the Debates in the
Federal Convention of 1787, Reported by James Madison, With an introduction
by Adrienne Koch. W. W. Morton & Company New York * London, Reissued as a
Norton paperback 1987, original introduction copyright 1966, Ohio
University Press, pp 561)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Pinckney wished to guarantee religious freedom in the Federal
Constitution by providing that "The legislature of the United States shall
pass no law on the subject of religion"--a proposal which, though referred
to the committee on detail, was apparently dropped, as we do not hear of it
again until it appears in slightly revised form in the first amendment of
the Bill of Rights of two years later.
***********************************************
Article VI, Section III: The No Religious Test Ban Clause (Separation
clause)
Part I: Introduction
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/testban1.htm
Part II: The Constitutional Convention
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/testban2.htm
Part III: The Pennsylvania State Ratifying Convention
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/testban3.htm
Part IV: The Connecticut State Ratifying Convention and The Massachusetts
State Ratifying Convention
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/testban4.htm
Part V: The Virginia State Ratifying Convention
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/testban5.htm
Part VI: The North Carolina State Ratifying Convention
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/testban6.htm
Some Thoughts on Religion and Law
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/bthot-lr.htm"
Excerpt from The federalist Society For Law and Public Policy Studies.
Charitable Choice, Remarks of Professor Marci Hamilton
http://www.fed-soc.org/Publications/practicegroupnewsletters/PG%20Links/charchoicemh.htm
"They divided power among the three branches of the Federal
Government,
through Federal state separation of power, through Church state separation
of power, a division which is recognized in the Constitution even before
the First Amendment in the Religious Test Oath Clause."
***********************************************
Original Intent:
Introduction What intent, whose intent?
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/origntro.htm
Original Intent? Part II Excerpts from correspondence of members of the
First Federal Congress -- January 2, 1789 to June 30, 1789
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/origp2.htm
Original Intent? Part III Excerpts from correspondence of members of the
First Federal Congress -- July 5, 1789 to August 18, 1789
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/origp3.htm
Original Intent? Part IV Excerpts from correspondence of members of the
First Federal Congress -- August 19, 1789 to October 2, 1789
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/origp4.htm
*******************************************************
Some additional information:
The Legislative History of the Establishment Clause:
Congressional Debates: Religious Amendments, 1789
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/1stdebat.htm
FROM THE HOUSE OF REPs
"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 BORs
The six men on that committee were
From the House
Chairman Madison
Sherman
Vining
From the Senate
Chairman Ellsworth
Carroll
Paterson
***********************************************
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.
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The Bill Of Rights: A Documentary History, Vol. II,
Bernard Schwartz, Chelsea House Publishers, in association with McGraw Hill
Book Company, N.Y. Toronto, London, Sydney (1971) pp 1159)
***************************************************
James Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance (June,1785)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/memorial.htm
Jefferson's Bill for Religious Freedom (Passed December, 1785)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/statute.htm
Excerpts from James Madison's Detached Memoranda (written after 1817)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/detach.htm
*************************************************************
The use of the word "establishment" in the First Amendment is
unique to constitutions of this period. No state constitution used this
particular term, preferring to make specific provisions which prohibited
tax monies for churches, discrimination against minority sects, and other
measures which might establish a church. The use of the vague term in the
Bill of Rights indicates the belief that the national government had no
power in these specific areas, so that a general prohibition towards
matters of religion was sufficient.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Religion Under State Constitutions, John K. Wilson.
Journal Of Church and State, Volume 32, Autumn 1990, Number 4, pp 753-773.)
==========================================================
"Congress (which now means any level of government) shall make no law
RESPECTING (touching, helping, supporting touching upon, touching, aiding,
hindering, applying to, have to do with, etc) an ESTABLISHMENT
(institution) of RELIGION (any religious sect, society, denomination,
religion), . . . "
The use of public monies, the taxing of individuals to support religion was
considered a form of religious establishment at the time of the founding of
this nation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The first American dictionary to link "establishment" to a church
was Webster's 1828 edition, which was published almost forty years after
the First Amendment was drafted. Webster by adding supplemented the
sparser 1806 edition by adding the following definition: "The episcopal
form of religion, so called in England.
[Referring to this new 1828 definition, Justice Rehnquist, in support of
his argument that the word "establishment" "had a well-accepted meaning,"
ignored Webster's 1806 edition and wrongly stated that the 1828 edition was
"the first American dictionary." Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 106
(1985) (Rehnquist, J. dissenting).]
The frequency of the usage "establishment-. without any reference to
religion, and the relative infrequency of its use in regard to religion,
and the relative infrequency of its use in regard to religion, certainly
suggests that the word was not a term of art bearing a technical
definition.
The term "establishment," when applied to a religion, nevertheless
was controversial in the eighteenth century. An examination of several
disputes where the meaning of the term was debated suggests that by 1789
the word was more of a term of opprobrium than a description of any
particular church-state relationship.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: A Standard for repair, The Establishment Clause,
Equality, and Natural Rights. By T. Jeremy Gunn. Garland Publishing, Inc.
N. Y. (1992) p. 71-73)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Hamilton defined establishment of religion as the government
support and protection
of religion.
"Remarks on the Quebec Bill," in Hamilton Papers, 1:169-70.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
''[F]or the men who wrote the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment the
'establishment' of a religion connoted sponsorship, financial support, and
active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity."
http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment01/02.html#1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the eleven states that ratified the First 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 and violated its free
exercise.
That Americans during the revolutionary period did not always carry
their principles into practice either in Church-State or other matters did
not negate those principles. Except in a few instances, such as financial
support of churches, they passed to subsequent generations the task of
working out the consequences of the principle that the state had no
competence in religious matters in a society wherein customs, mores, laws,
and religion intertwined and wherein -the majority equated religion with
Protestantism. However, the federal Bill of Rights prompted several states
to begin to reconcile practice with principle Between 1 789 and 1792,
Delaware, South Carolina, and Georgia abandoned religious tests for
officeholding, and Pennsylvania modified its test to exclude only atheists.
The meaning of free exercise of religion and establishment of
religion in 1789 must be examined within the historical matrix that
produced these concepts. just as Puritan demands for religious liberty take
on a different hue when seen against the pattern of Puritan belief, and
just as the sweeping proclamations of anti-subscriptionists of the
seventeenth century were not at all what they seemed on their face, so the
meaning of the First Amendment must arise out of its historical context
rather than from a literalist reading. It meant at least this: that each
citizen had a right to the free exercise of his or her religion as long as
it did not "break out into overt acts against peace and order." Further,
the people of almost every state that ratified the First Amendment believed
that religion should be maintained and supported voluntarily. They saw
government attempts to organize and regulate such support as a usurpation
of power, as a violation of liberty of conscience and free exercise of
religion, and as falling within the scope of what they termed an
establishment of religion.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The First Freedoms, Church and State in America to
the Passage of the First Amendment. Thomas J. Curry. Oxford University
Press. (1986) pp 202 - 222)
===========================================================
" The First Amendment bans laws respecting an establishment of
religion. Most of the framers of that amendment very probably meant that
government should not promote, sponsor, or subsidize religion because it is
best left to private voluntary support for the sake of religion itself as
well as for government, and above all for the sake of the individual. Some
of the framers undoubtedly believed that government should maintain a close
relationship with religion, that is, with Protestantism, and that people
should support taxes for the benefit of their own churches and ministers.
The framers who came from Massachusetts and Connecticut certainly believed
this, as did the representatives of New Hampshire, but New Hampshire was
the only one of these New England states that ratified the First Amendment.
Of the eleven states that ratified the First Amendment, New Hampshire and
Vermont were probably the only ones in which a majority of the people
believed that the government should support religion. In all the other
ratifying states, a majority very probably opposed such support. But
whether those who framed and ratified the First Amendment believed in
government aid to religion or in its private voluntary support, the fact is
that no framer believed that the United States had or should have power to
legislate on the subject of religion, and no state supported that power
either."
(The Establishment Clause, Religion and the First Amendment, By Leonard W
Levy, page 146-147)
==========================================================
One could say that the following words were designed to prevent that very
thing:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,..."
That the above words would prevent any supporting, be it financial or
non-financial, and protection of any religion, sect, religious society,
denomination, etc. It would not hinder religion but would not aid it
either.
=============================================================
[another had said]
>:|It is amazing what some people think constitutes the *ESTABLISHMENT* of a
>:|religion.
[I replied]
First of all the operative word is RESPECTING.
Secondly, because of the wording one can be in violation of the
Establishment clause without having actually established a religion.
What it really says is:
"Congress shall make no law RESPECTING an establishment of religion, or
PROHIBITING the free exercise thereof;"
What it DOES NOT say is:
"Congress make no law establishing religion . . .
==========================================================
. . . it is clear that the amendment does not say, "Congress shall make no
law establishing religion," but does say "no law respecting an
establishment of religion." It therefore cannot be construed as
authorizing Congress to support religious institutions. [or religion, any
kind of religion.]
Religious Liberty and the Secular State, The Constitutional Context. John
M. Smomley.Prometheus Books, (1987) p. 49
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[EMPHASIS ADDED]
The still more important fact is that the type of article used in the
establishment clause makes no difference. The First Amendment does not say
that Congress shall not establish a religion or create an establishment of
religion. It says Congress shall make no law RESPECTING an establishment of
religion. Whether "respecting" connotes honoring or concerning, the clause
means that Congress shall make no law on that subject THE BAN IS NOT JUST
ON ESTABLISHMENTS OF RELIGION BUT ON LAWS RESPECTING
THEM, A FACT THAT ALLOWS A LAW TO FALL SHORT OF CREATING AN ESTABLISHMENT
YET STILL BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
(SOURCE: The Establishment Clause, Religion and the First Amendment,
Leonard W. Levy, Second Edition, Revised, The University of North Carolina
Press, (1994) p. 118
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thirdly, history gives some pretty clear examples of what constitutes AN
establishment of religion.
James Madison felt that Chaplains in Congress, etc. established a national
religion. He felt that counting ministers during the census violated the
establishment clause. He vetoed 3 Acts of Congress because he felt they
violated the Establishment Clause
* Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses only Reinforced Separation of
Church and State.
o No Power to Congress Over Religion. The Separation Clause,
Article IV Paragraph III
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/art4piii.htm
o No Power to Congress over Religion: The "Elastic Clause" and
the 1st Amendment
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/nopower.htm
* Representative Thomas Tucker on Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/basic2a.htm
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|<bucke...@nospam.net> wrote in message
>:|> Why?
"Roger" <rog...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>:|The have tablets with the numbers 1-10 carved into them. No words. At the
>:|bottom of the doors.
>:|
>:|More info, including links to pictures:
>:|http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/arg8a.htm
>:|
I know about the above, I took the pictures that are located on that site
in March 1997 and wrote most of the text for it.
I was doing the Historical research for Tom Peters web site 1995-1997 and
S. Batte was doing the Legal research for his site at that same period in
time. In 1998 we both began the current site:
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
and in 1999 or 2000 (I forget which now) we re-published Tom's site as a
separate portion of our site.
The carving on the door is in complete harmony to all the rest of the
artwork in the building and none of that artwork places any special
importance on the Ten Commandments.
I was asking why of the original poster.
Server 13
> "The Fair and Balanced Weasel" <zeppn...@finestplanet.com> wrote in
> message news:a8lojvsu78j8uosaj...@4ax.com...
>
>>On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 22:57:59 -0400, "Brian" <blon...@comcast.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Daniel" <sabot...@hot.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>news:jfX_a.189870$xg5....@twister.austin.rr.com...
>>>
>>>>"Dana" <your...@example.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:vjof51l...@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>
>>>>>http://www.cnsnews.com/ThisHour.asp
>>>>>Judge Refuses to Remove Ten Commandments Display
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>good.
>>>
>>>I still say people should read what the First Amendment actually says.
>
> No
>
>>>where does it say anything about separation of church and state.
>>
>>It says Congress shall make no rule regarding an establishment of
>>religion. In other words, the government is forbidden from promoting
>>religion.
>
>
> That means there will not be a state religion which is not the same thing.
>
>
Yes, we all know about your illiterate translation, you all parrot it from
the top of the mountain.
Unfortunately for you, educated Americans know "respecting" meant "regarding"
back in the 18th century. And an "establishment of religion" is a church.
Server 13
An "establishment of religion" is a church, dumbass.
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|
>:| "The Government of the United States is not in
>:| any sense founded on the Christian religion."
>:| -- John Adams, second US president
Yea, someone almost got it right. Right president (it wasn't Washington)
who signed it into law even though no president actually said or wrote
those words. However, not a proper cite at all.
Subject: Re: Democrat Presidents on God
Newsgroups: misc.education
Date: 2002-08-12 22:58:38 PST
epea...@unlserve.unl.edu (Edgar A Pearlstein) wrote:
>:| A NOTE ON THE TREATY OF TRIPOLI. This treaty with the Bey of Tripoli
>:|was negotiated by the administration of President George Washington,
>:|and finally signed and ratified during the administration of President
>:|John Adams, in 1797. Article 11 of the English-language version says
>:|"the United States is in no sense based on the Christian religion".
>:|(There is a mystery about this, since Article 11 doesn't appear in the
>:|Arabic version! It's a fair presumption, though, that the English
>:|version is what was signed by President Adams and duly ratified by the
>:|U. S. Senate. See Bevans: Treaties and Other International Agreements
>:|of the United States of America, 1776-1989, volume 11 and David Humphreys:
>:|Miscellaneous Works (1804).)
My comments
There is no presumption needed. The version that was ratified by the U S
Senate and sighed by the President did contain the Article 11 you mention
above.
Treaty of Tripoli, 1796: Little-Known U.S. Document Signed by President
Adams Proclaims America's Government Is Secular
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tripoli1.htm
============================================================
The preliminary treaty began with a signing on 4 November, 1796 (the end of
George Washington's last term as president). Joel Barlow, the American
diplomat served as counsel to Algiers and held responsibility for the
treaty negotiations. Barlow had once served under Washington as a chaplain
in the revolutionary army. He became good friends with Paine, Jefferson,
and read Enlightenment literature. Later he abandoned Christian orthodoxy
for rationalism and became an advocate of secular government. Barlow, along
with his associate, Captain Richard O'Brien, et al, translated and modified
the Arabic version of the treaty into English. From this came the added
Amendment 11. Barlow forwarded the treaty to U.S. legislators for approval
in 1797. Timothy Pickering, the secretary of state, endorsed it and John
Adams concurred (now during his presidency), sending the document on to the
Senate. The Senate approved the treaty on June 7, 1797, and officially
ratified by the Senate with John Adams signature on 10 June,1797. All
during this multi-review process, the wording of Article 11 never raised
the slightest concern. The treaty even became public through its
publication in The Philadelphia Gazette on 17 June 1797.
So here we have a clear admission by the United States that our government
did not found itself upon Christianity. Unlike the Declaration of
Independence, this treaty represented U.S. law as all treaties do according
to the Constitution (see Article VI, Sect. 2).
Although the Christian exclusionary wording in the Treaty of Tripoli only
lasted for eight years and no longer has legal status, it clearly
represented the feelings of our Founding Fathers at the beginning of the
U.S. government.
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html
===================================================
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=cg799s8bs46f1doefrl9nk393prt99vgta%404ax.com&output=gplain
(1) The treaty under discussion was negotiated , ratified and signed into
law within approx 10 years of the framing, of the Constitution, approx 9
years of its ratifying, approx 8 years of the framing of the BORs and
finally six years of same BORs being ratified and added to the
Constitution.
(2) Article VI. - The United States
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made
in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under
the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;
and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the
Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
(3) It is part of a official document that had legal importance at that
time. In short it was law.
(4) It is far more important then the **DICTA** of Holy trinity that some
want to trot out to support their incorrect claims. Especially since the
**dicta** of Holy Trinity has no importance, legally or in any other
official manner.
(4) Its importance lies in the fact that it exists, and that it was debated
and ratified by men of the founding generation. That no one felt strongly
enough to object to it being there nor to demand it be removed.
(5) That they allowed it to become part of the law. Like it or not, it was
legally an official declaration of fact regarding this nation at one time.
That is its importance.
(6) Now here we have a case of some wanting to have their cake and eat it
to. Some of these same people want to say that an official legal document
ratified by the U S Senate and signed into law by a U S President has not
meaning or importance, and that phrase in that document has should be
overlooked, while saying that the U S Supreme Court declared this is a
Christian Nation.
LOL, how ironic. They want to take dicta from a Supreme Court opinion and
claim it has official meaning , some even say it has legal meaning, while
wanting to ignore an article in an official and what was then legal
document. (and might I add, a document that was debated, ratified and
signed by men of the founding generation, perhaps even some who did in fact
attend the Constitutional convention and or state ratifying conventions.
Something that Justice [this is a Christian nation] Brewer never did.
======================================================
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ugd39s41f9r3do2n6kktisnkgtrumpo0bi%404ax.com&output=gplain
JUNE 10, 1797
ARTICLE 11. As the government of the United States of America is
not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion, as it has in itself
no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of
Mussulmans; and, as the said States never entered into any was, or act of
hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that
no pretext, arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an
interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: TREATY OF PEACE AND FRIENDSHIP
BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE BEY AND SUBJECTS OF BARBARY
Communicated to the Senate, May 26, 179, American State Papers, Class I,
Foreign Relations, Volume, II, Page 154)
(The treaty was made under the administration of George Washington, and was
signed and sealed at Tripoli on the fourth Day of November, 1796, and at
Algiers the third day of January, 1797, by Hassan Bashaw, Dey of Algiers,
and Joel Barlow, Counsul- General of the United States
AMERICAN STATE PAPERS Bearing On Sunday Legislation, Revised and Enlarged
Edition, Compiled and Annotated by William Addison Blakely, Revised Edition
Edited by Willard Allen Colcord, The Religious Liberty Association,
Washington D.C. 1911, pp 153)
*It was ratified by the U.S. Senate June 7, 1797 and signed into law by
President John Adams June 10, 1797.*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APRIL 1806
ARTICLE XIV. AS the government of the United States of
America has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or
tranquillity of Mussulmen, and as the said States never have entered into
any voluntary war or act of hostility against any Mahometan except in
defense of their just rights to freely navigate the high seas, it is
declared by t he contracting parties that no pretext arising from religious
opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between
the two nations. And the consuls and agents of both nations respectively
shall have liberty to exercise his religion in his own house. All slaves of
the same religion shall not be impeded in going to said consul's house at
hours of prayer.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: TREATY OF PEACE, AMITY, AND COMMERCE BETWEEN THE
PRESIDENT AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND THE BASHA, BEY,
AND SUBJECTS OF TRIPOLI, IN BOMBAY, CONCLUDED JUNE 4, 1805; RATIFIED BY THE
SENATE APRIL 12, 1806, " Treaties and Conventions Concluded between the
United States of America and other Powers, Since July 4, 1776," published
by the Department of State, 1889, page 1084, AMERICAN STATE PAPERS
Bearing On Sunday Legislation, Revised and Enlarged Edition, Compiled and
Annotated by William Addison Blakely, Revised Edition Edited by Willard
Allen Colcord, The Religious Liberty Association, Washington D.C. 1911, pp
164-165)
* Like the treaty of 1797, this treaty showed the government of the United
States to be impartial in matters of religion,--that it had no established
religion, and that the question of religion and religious opinion was not
to be considered in national affairs. It showed that it was not the policy
of this government to compel those within its jurisdiction, who are not
Christians, to act as though they were. *
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|On Fri, 15 Aug 2003, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>:|
>:|> > It is a clause concerning the establishment of a state religion, not
>:|> > about the religion in government per se. Maybe you should read up on
>:|> > the founding fathers and their intentions.
>:|
>:|> "The Government of the United States is not in
>:|> any sense founded on the Christian religion."
>:|> -- John Adams, second US president
>:|
>:|Let's be very careful with the attribution on that quotation.
>:|
>:|It is from the Treaty of Tripoli which may have been signed by Adams as
>:|president, but he did not write the words.
>:|
>:|The treaty was negotiated by Joel Barlow during Washington's presidency
>:|and then it was signed by Adams.
>:|
>:|http://candst.tripod.com/boston4.htm
>:|
>:|Is much more dependable than David Barton and Wall Builders.
>:|
>:|There is more here:
>:|http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-q=Joel+Barlow&sp-a=sp1001b611
>:|
>:|Right, Jim?
Well, I gave credit that he did get the right president, as far as who
signed it into law. (grin)
SemiScholar
wrote:
>> If it just meant they wouldn't establish a religion, they would have
>> said so.
>
>The exact wording is "Congress shall make no law respecting the
>establishment of religion."
Jeeze, brian - if you're goin gto say "the exact wording is:", you
really ought to get the wording correct...
> This means exactly that. The establishment of
>a state sponsored national religion is prohibited.
The difference between "the establishment of religion" and "an
establishment of religion" is huge, and your mistake at that basic
level renders all of the rest of what you say irrelevant.
GOP
"SemiScholar" <noe...@spambegone.com> wrote in message
news:8t3qjvo8ll8shtnvm...@4ax.com...
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Joni Rathbun
> or prohibiting the free exercise thereof --->
without government sponsorship or funding.
Bung Tater
> "Brian" <blon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >:|I still say people should read what the First Amendment actually says. No
> >:|where does it say anything about separation of church and state.
>
> Actually it does.
No, it doesn't.
>
> To be totally correct what you need to say is the words *separation of
> church and state* will not be found anywhere in the Constitution.
That's what he said.
>
> That is also irrelevant.
Not when it is necessary to correct the constant squawking from the
left who insist that "seperation of chuch and state" is in the
Constitution, when it clearly isn't.
> The concept, the principle of church state separation is found in the
> unamended constitution
Really? Where?
> and further reinforced with the religious clauses of
> the BORs.
Nope. The BOR says that Congress shall ENACT NO LAW respecting the
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Unless this monument to the ten commandments has somehow, magically,
managed to enact congressional legislation establishing a religion,
then it's perfectly Constitutional. There certainly DOES seem to be
an awful lot of attempts to "prohibit the free exercise thereof",
however, and one could certainly make the case that a state court
order to forcibly remove a monument that some consider part and parcel
of their right to exercise religion freely IS unconstitutional.
BT
GOP
BZZZZT! Incorrect response.
Displaying does not make for sponsorship.
Joni Rathbun
Unless the display includes similar documents from all
religions, it most certainly does. And even then, it would constitute an
endorsement of theism.
But "endorsement" is exactly what fundies want.
Brian
Sorry, it should read, "Congress shall make no law respecting AN
establishment of religion." Huge difference there.
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|Three cheers for the judge!
>:|
>:|Displaying the Ten Commandments in a court house is NOT state sponsored
>:|religion.
Incorrect.
Let me give you some food for thought:
Judges, justices, are in a unique position, be it a trial judge in a
District court, a judge on a Court of Appeals or a Justice on the USSC.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Few persons more clearly act as a government official on behalf of the
state than a judge in his courtroom. He should always remember that the
democratic process gave him his office and that he is accountable as a
public agent to all who have business within his courtroom. Along with the
power to issue the state's criminal punishments upon offenders, a judge has
the power to compel citizens to serve as jurors, to require citizens to
testify before the court, and to punish by contempt any person who refuses
to yield to judicial authority. As long as a judge sits on the bench, he
acts not as a private individual, but on behalf of government. Thus, when a
judge directs an invocation to be given or displays religious art, it is a
religious act advanced by the state and not merely a personal expression of
faith. The state's imprimatur inevitably is placed on the prayer and the
display, and government can no longer be considered neutral in the purest
sense, because its powers are being used to endorse religion."
SOURCE: Editorial: Religion and the abuse of Judicial Power, Derek H. Davis
Journal of Church and State, Volume 39, Spring 1997, Number 2, p. 207
********************************************************
"Brian" <blon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>:|The exact wording is "Congress shall make no law respecting the
>:|establishment of religion." This means exactly that. The establishment of
>:|a state sponsored national religion is prohibited.
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|bucke...@nospam.net wrote in message news:<4fmpjv06li8nces8g...@4ax.com>...
>:|> "Brian" <blon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|I still say people should read what the First Amendment actually says. No
>:|> >:|where does it say anything about separation of church and state.
>:|>
>:|> Actually it does.
>:|
>:|No, it doesn't.
>:|
>:|>
>:|> To be totally correct what you need to say is the words *separation of
>:|> church and state* will not be found anywhere in the Constitution.
>:|
>:|That's what he said.
>:|
Actually it wasn't.
He said "Nowhere does it say anything about separation of church and
state."
The concept, the principle was embodied in the unamended constitution,
therefore, that is about separation of church and state.
>:|>
>:|> That is also irrelevant.
>:|
>:|Not when it is necessary to correct the constant squawking from the
>:|left who insist that "seperation of chuch and state" is in the
>:|Constitution, when it clearly isn't.
Well, since it is in the Constitution guess you lose this argument.
Try these:
Study Guide for Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd1.htm
A Study Guide for the Words/Concept: "Separation of Church and State"
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd3.htm
*****************************************************
But I only need one item to prove you are incorrect so I will select one
from the URls above since my experience says people won't check out URLs
if they think it is going to show their pet theories to be incorrect.
So my one offering showing how incorrect you are:
"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and Gov't in the
Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by
Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents' already furnished
in their short history" (James Madison's Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).
Excerpts from Madison's Detached Memoranda.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/detach.htm
****************************************************
>:|> The concept, the principle of church state separation is found in the
>:|> unamended constitution
>:|
>:|Really? Where?
See above:
>:|> and further reinforced with the religious clauses of
>:|> the BORs.
>:|
>:|Nope. The BOR says that Congress shall ENACT NO LAW respecting the
>:|establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
>:|Unless this monument to the ten commandments has somehow, magically,
>:|managed to enact congressional legislation establishing a religion,
>:|then it's perfectly Constitutional.
Sorry, you are incorrect.
First of all the actual words are
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . .
Did you notice the operative word, RESPECTING?
That operative word broadens the meaning.
>:|There certainly DOES seem to be
>:|an awful lot of attempts to "prohibit the free exercise thereof",
Prohibiting, what an interesting word, wouldn't you agree.
For instance, I can limit or restrict the hours my child might spend
watching television or what that child can watch on television yet never
once prohibit that child from watching television.
Get the picture?
>:|however, and one could certainly make the case that a state court
>:|order to forcibly remove a monument that some consider part and parcel
>:|of their right to exercise religion freely IS unconstitutional.
Let me give you some food for thought:
Brian
"Server 13" <c-b...@uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:jn6%a.1948$9m4....@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu...
Maybe you are the illiterate one. Where did you get your point about
"respecting"? I never mentioned it at all and was never arguing that point.
In what sense are you using the word church or the word establishment?
Establishment in this sense does not refer to a building and if you think
so, you are are out to lunch. Establishment, in this case, refers to
starting something. Establishment is being used as an action and not a
noun. Read about the history of the Constitution before making yourself
look like a complete ass.
GOP
No, a display is NOT sponsorship.
Now when a legislative body passes a law that says, "You must go to church
on Sunday," or "You WILL attend the Roman Catholic church." ..... THAT is
sponsoring religion.
SemiScholar
Yes indeed.
SemiScholar
>
>"Joni Rathbun" <jrat...@orednet.org> wrote in message
>news:Pine.LNX.4.44.030815...@lab.oregonvos.net...
>>
>> On Fri, 15 Aug 2003, GOP wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > "SemiScholar" <noe...@spambegone.com> wrote in message
>> > news:8t3qjvo8ll8shtnvm...@4ax.com...
>> > > On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 00:48:56 -0400, "Brian" <blon...@comcast.net>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > >"Joni Rathbun" <jrat...@orednet.org> wrote in message
>> > > >news:Pine.LNX.4.44.030814...@lab.oregonvos.net...
>> > > >>
>> > > >> On Fri, 15 Aug 2003, Brian wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > "The Fair and Balanced Weasel" <zeppn...@finestplanet.com>
>> > > >
>> > > >The exact wording is "Congress shall make no law respecting the
>> > > >establishment of religion."
>> > >
>> > > Jeeze, brian - if you're goin gto say "the exact wording is:", you
>> > > really ought to get the wording correct...
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > > This means exactly that. The establishment of
>> > > >a state sponsored national religion is prohibited.
>> > >
>> > > The difference between "the establishment of religion" and "an
>> > > establishment of religion" is huge, and your mistake at that basic
>> > > level renders all of the rest of what you say irrelevant.
>> > >
>> >
>> > or prohibiting the free exercise thereof --->
>>
>> without government sponsorship or funding.
>>
>
>BZZZZT! Incorrect response.
>
>Displaying does not make for sponsorship.
>
You're wrong. The government displaying religious items certainly IS
an endorsement of that religion. That's the whole point of the
display, in most cases. If it's just for artistic purposes, like if
congress were able to arrange for a showing of Michelangelo's Pieta in
the capitol building as a part of an art exhibit, that would be fine.
But this bozo judge who has the 10 comandments in his courtroom most
certainly IS doing it as an endorsement of those comandments, at least
4 of which are completely religious in nature and spefific to one
religious tradition.
SemiScholar
wrote:
Ye, it IS a huge difference. And it makes your arguments moot.
GOP
I disagree. The judge isn't forcing anyone to read the commandments or
making them go to church is he?
The commandments are simply in the hall. You can stop and gaze, read them -
or you can walk right on by.
Stewart Millen
"GOP" <G...@majorityparty.com> wrote in
news:vm9%a.150116$o%2.64893@sccrnsc02:
>> Unless the display includes similar documents from all
>> religions, it most certainly does. And even then, it would
>> constitute an endorsement of theism.
>>
>> But "endorsement" is exactly what fundies want.
>>
>
> No, a display is NOT sponsorship.
>
> Now when a legislative body passes a law that says, "You
> must go to church on Sunday," or "You WILL attend the Roman
> Catholic church." ..... THAT is sponsoring religion.
No, that's coercion, and a violation of the free
exercise clause.
We're talking about the anti-establishment clause--
that the government will not promote or appear to
prefer, directly or indirectly, one or more religious
faiths.
You're confused.
Stewart
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 6.5.8ckt http://www.ipgpp.com/
iQCVAwUBPz0rLDSyh6XxoDgRAQGP7gP+O9CBGK/v6TpMZB8U9bSVvTFIWzkw7gYH
XwOSCg8X7au+6P1awU5Q9/fDc3++T9bkD+zVV5QiUUtsN0pUwdHNVCymeLFlnoCQ
8z1wbYSNWD/VtMkPsVDwK4XpnFfEDeCbfxf6o5o1WeIFkCkkCs9Yyf4EMaEAXXBE
5StOncXI8N0=
=GdvF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
GOP
Ok, so how is simply displaying the Ten Commandments, make a law respecting
an establishment of religion?
GOP
"Stewart Millen" <Stewart...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93D896C87AD16St...@130.133.1.4...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> "GOP" <G...@majorityparty.com> wrote in
> news:vm9%a.150116$o%2.64893@sccrnsc02:
>
>
> >> Unless the display includes similar documents from all
> >> religions, it most certainly does. And even then, it would
> >> constitute an endorsement of theism.
> >>
> >> But "endorsement" is exactly what fundies want.
> >>
> >
> > No, a display is NOT sponsorship.
> >
> > Now when a legislative body passes a law that says, "You
> > must go to church on Sunday," or "You WILL attend the Roman
> > Catholic church." ..... THAT is sponsoring religion.
>
> No, that's coercion, and a violation of the free
> exercise clause.
>
> We're talking about the anti-establishment clause--
> that the government will not promote or appear to
> prefer, directly or indirectly, one or more religious
> faiths.
>
No, you're ignorant.
Congress shall make no law......
And they haven't. A display violates no law, let alone create one, nor does
it lend itself to sponsorship.
Joni Rathbun
Of course it is. It is also an endorsement and an act of open approval.
> Now when a legislative body passes a law that says, "You must go to church
> on Sunday," or "You WILL attend the Roman Catholic church." ..... THAT is
> sponsoring religion.
>
That's a law.
Joni Rathbun
On Fri, 15 Aug 2003, Brian wrote:
Wrong. It reads, "an establishment of" not "the establishment of."
Establishment here is NOT a verb. Nor did the author of the
clause see it as one.
Brian
"Joni Rathbun" <jrat...@orednet.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.030815...@lab.oregonvos.net...
>
Care to prove this argument of yours? Madison most certainly did mean it as
a verb.
"Gales & Seaton's History Of Debates in Congress, Sec. 758. The record shows
that Madison "apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress
should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by
law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their
conscience. Whether the words are necessary or not, he did not mean to say,
but they had been required by some of the State Conventions, who seemed to
entertain an opinion that under the clause of the constitution, which gave
power to Congress to make all laws necessary and proper to carry into
execution the constitution, and the laws made under it, enabled them to make
laws of such a nature as might infringe the rights of conscience, AND
ESTABLISH A NATIONAL RELIGION; TO PREVENT THESE EFFECTS HE PRESUMED THE
AMENDMENT WAS INTENDED, and he thought it well expressed as the nature of
the language would admit" [Emphasis added]. The language then considered was
slightly different than our First Amendment's verbiage, but this history
reveals the presumed intention of the nature of said Amendment. In fact,
Madison later (Ibid., Sec. 758ff) requested that the word "national" be
inserted into the amendment, but that idea was rejected for anti-federalist,
and not separationist, purposes."
You are clearly an idiot. You can debate the principle of Separation of
Church and State, but what establsihment means is not in question.
Stewart Millen
"GOP" <G...@majorityparty.com> wrote in
news:r%9%a.151609$YN5.99670@sccrnsc01:
>
> "Stewart Millen" <Stewart...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> message
> news:Xns93D896C87AD16St...@130.133.1.4...
>> "GOP" <G...@majorityparty.com> wrote in
>> news:vm9%a.150116$o%2.64893@sccrnsc02:
>>
>>
>> >> Unless the display includes similar documents from all
>> >> religions, it most certainly does. And even then, it
>> >> would constitute an endorsement of theism.
>> >>
>> >> But "endorsement" is exactly what fundies want.
>> >>
>> >
>> > No, a display is NOT sponsorship.
>> >
>> > Now when a legislative body passes a law that says, "You
>> > must go to church on Sunday," or "You WILL attend the
>> > Roman Catholic church." ..... THAT is sponsoring
>> > religion.
>>
>> No, that's coercion, and a violation of the free
>> exercise clause.
>>
>> We're talking about the anti-establishment clause--
>> that the government will not promote or appear to
>> prefer, directly or indirectly, one or more religious
>> faiths.
>>
>
>
> No, you're ignorant.
>
> Congress shall make no law......
>
> And they haven't. A display violates no law, let alone
> create one, nor does it lend itself to sponsorship.
The full phrasing, please:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion,"
That, "GOP", is the anti-establishment clause.
"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
And that is the free exercise or religious liberty clause.
And they're not the same thing, despite your deliberate
attempt to try to merge the first into the second.
You see, it's indeed possible to have an established
churches, and government-favored religions, and yet
not persecute others of other faiths. In fact, there was
even a country where this was pretty much done at the
time when the US Constitution was written, when that
very amendment was penned, which the Founders knew quite
well.
And that country was England. England had its established
religion, its favored Protestant faiths, and its "dissenter"
faiths. Moreover, even practitioners of the officially
banned religions--Jews and Catholics--were by that time
pretty much left alone. England was the very country that
you are trying to make the US out to be, one with no anti-
establishment clause but with a free exercise clause.
(In fact, in 1830 the English made it official).
And the Founders could have simply adopted the model
from England, their mother country. They could have
easily written:
"Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise
of religion"
And left it at that. Free exercise and toleration of
religion for everyone, while empowering the government to
favor one or more religions over others, even helping to
fund one or some, if it so choose.
But you *note* that the Founders did no such thing. Instead,
they quite deliberately broke tradition with the mother
country by sticking in the part:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion"
as well, making clear that even the relatively modest offense
of using the tax money of *all* to support the religious
views of *some*, even the majority, would not be done.
It's all quite clear. You want to ignore the first part
of the First Amendment when it comes to religion, and deal
only with the second. But to the Founders, the big break
with tradition was their inclusion of the first part.
And BTW, the 18th-century meaning of the word "establishment"
is to support with tax monies. Which is precisely what Moore
is doing.
Stewart
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 6.5.8ckt http://www.ipgpp.com/
iQCVAwUBPz0yZDSyh6XxoDgRAQFmWAP/UprxJc+6oksGdV/Ijt8G4ynpOkIMfib7
M5whWe5sqeTDzOJLfVX+PZoKfR6ozZ8eEIdVJqpEiIbbCV9QhI4AZr6rqwy0E3IF
z8aahZpPHaRa96fNhQ5qIfCaMDJLNRjACj2SCplfzH36ltM50DzDbe2w4LZ+TxEw
mBI8MrJHBoE=
=al94
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Joni Rathbun
LOL. For starters, it appears you do not understand what you posted.
Nor have you read all of the information. There's a reason the wording
of the final amendment was accepted as changed.
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|Maybe you are the illiterate one. Where did you get your point about
>:|"respecting"? I never mentioned it at all and was never arguing that point.
You had better because that is the operative word.
For instance:
The wording does not say:
Congress shall make no law making a state religion
Congress shall make no law establishing religion
Congress shall make no law establishing a state religion
Congress shall make no law establishing a national religion
What it does say is:
Congress shall make no law RESPECTING an establishment of religion, . . .
That is far broader.
***********************************************
" In recent discussions of religious freedom and Church-State separation in
the United States attention has been so much centered constitutionally on
the Bill of Rights that the importance of this Provision in the original
Constitution as a bulwark of Church-State separation has been largely
overlooked. As a matter of fact it was and is important in preventing
religious tests for Federal office--a provision later extended to all the
states. It went far in thwarting any State Church in the United States; for
it would be almost impossible to establish such a Church, since no Church
has more than a fifth of the population. Congress as constituted with men
and women from all the denominations could never unite in selecting any one
body for this privilege. This has been so evident from the time of the
founding of the government that it is one reason why the First Amendment
must be interpreted more broadly than merely as preventing the state
establishment of religion which had already been made almost impossible."
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: CHURCH AND STATE IN THE UNITED STATES, VOLUME I,
Anton Phelps Stokes, D.D., LL.D, Harper & Brothers Publishers (1950) page
527)
***********************************************
. . . it is clear that the amendment does not say, "Congress shall make no
law establishing religion," but does say "no law respecting an
establishment of religion." It therefore cannot be construed as
authorizing Congress to support religious institutions. [or religion, any
kind of religion.]
Religious Liberty and the Secular State, The Constitutional Context. John
M. Smomley.Prometheus Books, (1987) p. 49
***********************************************
[EMPHASIS ADDED]
The still more important fact is that the type of article used in the
establishment clause makes no difference. The First Amendment does not say
that Congress shall not establish a religion or create an establishment of
religion. It says Congress shall make no law RESPECTING an establishment of
religion. Whether "respecting" connotes honoring or concerning, the clause
means that Congress shall make no law on that subject THE BAN IS NOT JUST
ON ESTABLISHMENTS OF RELIGION BUT ON LAWS RESPECTING
THEM, A FACT THAT ALLOWS A LAW TO FALL SHORT OF CREATING AN ESTABLISHMENT
YET STILL BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
(SOURCE: The Establishment Clause, Religion and the First Amendment,
Leonard W. Levy, Second Edition, Revised, The University of North Carolina
Press, (1994) p. 118
***********************************************
>:|In what sense are you using the word church or the word establishment?
>:|Establishment in this sense does not refer to a building and if you think
>:|so, you are are out to lunch. Establishment, in this case, refers to
>:|starting something. Establishment is being used as an action and not a
>:|noun. Read about the history of the Constitution before making yourself
>:|look like a complete ass.
I have read the history of the Constitution and BORs.
The followi is written by an attorney, who also happens to have a Ms. in
linqusitics:
Some Thoughts on Religion and Law
Written by Susan Batte
1. The Constitution did not provide any mechanism for the establishment
of religion or for the support of religion.
2. Religious tests were the primary mechanism for perpetuating an
established church within the political structure.
3. The Constitution specifically prohibits religious tests or oaths for
office.
THEREFORE, the Constitution created the concept of Separation of Church and
State by providing nothing in the constitution that supports the idea that
Government as Government is allowed to support any religion for any reason
and by specifically prohibiting the primary political mechanism for
supporting religion.
The 1st Amendment may only be interpreted, as being consistent with the
Constitution and the views expressed in the Constitution concerning
religion because:
1. The 1st Amendment was drafted after the Constitution was ratified and
was not designated as repealing any provision in the Constitution.
2. The 1st Amendment does not provide any mechanism for establishing
religion.
3. The 1st Amendment does provide the mechanism to allow an individual
as an individual and not as government to exercise the religion of his or
her choice.
THEREFORE, the 1st Amendment cannot be interpreted to mean that some
governmental entities may support religion in some ways (i.e., vouchers,
welfare programs, etc.).
Once the 1st Amendment prohibited Congress from establishing religion by
prohibiting it from making any law respecting an establishment of religion
- Congress was thereby precluded from passing any kind of appropriation
bill to fund any religious enterprise.
In order for the above to be true, the interpretation of "establishment"
would have to be broad, and in fact the broad interpretation of
"establishment" is supported. First, the O.E.D. (Oxford English Dictionary)
sets out a 1561 definition of establishment as "a means of establishing;
something that strengthens, supports or corroborates. Into the 1700s -
1800s, "establishment" could be defined as "the establishing by law (a
church, religion, form of worship.) As an example, the O.E.D. sets out the
following: 1886 Earl Selborne De Ch. Eng. I. iv. 77 All such relations of
the Church to the State as those which are summed up in the term
'Establishment'.
Second, a broad interpretation of"establishment" is consistent with the
indefinite article that proceeds it. "An"'establishment of religion' refers
to all or any religious establishment --- not to one or some
establishments. In the absence of definiteness, the inclusion of "of one
Christian sect over another" after "Congress shall make no law respecting
an establishment" would be necessary if, as Mr. Barton argues, the 1st
Amendment was all about stamping out competing rivalries between Christian
sects.
In addition, the operative word in the Establishment Clause is RESPECTING.
Respecting an establishment of religion. Any religious institution, be it a
20 member country church or a huge multimillion member international
religion, is an establishment of religion. The government is forbidden from
making any laws, positive or negative that would pertain to an
establishment of religion.
The narrow definition of establishment is that the 1st Amendment meant only
to prevent a "State Church" from being officially sanctioned by the
Government. (In this way, some people have tried to argue that supporting
religious schools doesn't establish anything.) However, such a narrow
reading of "Establishment" would need specific language added to the
Amendment to support it since a plain language reading of the Constitution
clearly shows no bias for (or against) Christianity as opposed to any other
religion or even irreligion. And neither does the 1st Amendment.
SOURCE: Excerpt from Some Thoughts on Religion and Law
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/bthot-lr.htm"
****************************************************
Along with that, let me add the following:
Although Madison intiallly proposed "nor shall any national religion
be established," in the debate that followed he explained himself by saying
that his proposal meant that "Congress shall not establish a religion." The
word "a" has great significance for the nonpreferentialists. They emphasize
the fact that in the debate Madison wished to proscribe "a national
religion," that is, a single or exclusive religion preferred over all
others "and nothing else." Similarly, they stress that the term used in the
final version of the amendment is "an establishment of religion." The use
of the singular noun, "an establishment," supposedly has the effect of
narrowing the scope of the prohibition.7 Madison allegedly wanted only to
prohibit "discriminatory religious assistance" and "a national church." The
climax of this view follows: "At the same time, the phrase `an
establishment' seems to ensure the legality of nondiscriminatory religious
aid. Had the framers prohibited `the establishment of religion,' which
would have emphasized the generic word `religion,' there might the been
some reason for thinking they wanted to prohibit all official preferences
of religion over irreligion. But by choosing `an establishment' over `the
establishment,' they were showing that they wanted to prohibit only those
official activities that tended to promote the interests of one or another
particular sect."8 Preferring "religion over irreligion" is a red herring;
the question of such a preference was not an issue. The government
possessed no power to aid irreligion or religion.
What shall we say, however, about the interpretation based on the
use of the indefinite rather than the definite article? First, we are not
interpreting a verbatim record of the debate. The record we have derives
from unreliable newspaper reports. It is incomplete and does not purport to
be a literal transcription of the words of the speakers. Reporters took
notes that they later rephrased and expanded for publication. Any
interpretation of the debate that turns on single words or precise nuances
of phrasing must be suspect.9 And any interpretation that turns on the use
of the indefinite article rather than the definite article must be utterly
rejected, for the simple reason that the reporter who took shorthand notes
of the debates on the Bill of Rights omitted articles, both definite and
indefinite. He recorded the main outlines of speech and later reconstructed
those speeches from his memory. He omitted a great deal and sometimes
garbled what he included. Madison said, when sending a copy of the
reporter's work to Jefferson, it gave "some idea of the discussion," though
it showed "the strongest evidences of mutilation & perversion, and of the
illiteracy of the Editor." To another correspondent Madison wrote that the
reporter "sometimes filled up blanks in his notes from memory or
imagination" and that he also made drunken reports.10
Second, the nonpreferentialists stress the "a" in Madison's
recommended amendment without considering that it did not pass the House.
The amendment as adopted bans any law "respecting the establishment of
religion." It does not refer to "a religion" or "a national religion." The
reference is to religion in general. The nonpreferentialist argument is
founded on a discarded proposal rather than the constitutional text.
Nevertheless, Madison had an interpretation of "national religion," as we
shall see, that undoes the nonpreferentialist argument.
Third, "the" is not "generic"; it is specific. Contrary to Robert
Cord, Daniel Dreisbach, and the others, the employment of "the" instead of
"an" as the article preceding "establishment of religion" would not have
broadened the establishment clause. Fourth, "the" can be as singular as "a"
or "an." But those are quibbles.
A more important objection to the nonpreferentialist emphasis on
the definite article in the establishment clause derives from the attempt
to construe it literally or strictly. That which is inherently ambiguous
cannot be strictly construed. Worse still, strict construction of the First
Amendment, if ever taken seriously, would lead to the destruction of basic
rights. Strict construction often leads to narrow-mindedness. Consider the
exact language of the amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" The framers of the
amendment deliberately used different verbs in the freedom of religion and
freedom of the press clauses. That is a matter of considerably greater
semantic importance than the difference between "an" and "the" in the
establishment clause. If the framers meant what they said and said what
they meant, then Congress may abridge the free exercise of religion so long
as Congress does not prohibit it. The point is that contrary to Rehnquist
and company, the principles embodied in the First Amendment's clauses, not
some misunderstanding based upon a grammarian's niceties, command our
constitutional respect.
The still more important fact is that the type,of article used.in
the establishment clause made no difference. The First Amendment does not
say that Congress shall not establish a religion or create an establishment
of religion. It says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion. Whether "respecting" connotes honoring or concerning, the
clause means-that Congress shall make no law on that subject. The ban is
not just on establishments of religion but on laws respecting them, a fact
that allows a law to fall short of creating an establishment yet still be
unconstitutional.
7. Cord, Separation of Church and State, p. 5.
8. Malbin, Religion and Politics, p. 14.
9. See Appendix.
10. James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, May 9, 1789, in William T.
Hutchinson et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison, ser. in progress
(Chicago, 1 962-), I2:I42. See Marion Tinling, "Thomas Lloyd's Reports of
the First Federal Congress," William and Mary Quarterly, 3d set., 18 (Oct.
1961): 530, on the ornission of articles, and pp. 530-38 for contemporary
criticism of Lloyd's reporting. Tinling quotes a Madison letter of Jan. 7,
1832, describing the reporter as a "votary of the bottle" who made "too
free use of it" (pp. 5 37-38).
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. 115-18
======================================================
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|I disagree.
Who cares what you agree with or disagree with.
Your personal opinion means nothing.
>:|The judge isn't forcing anyone to read the commandments or
>:|making them go to church is he?
>:|The commandments are simply in the hall. You can stop and gaze, read them -
>:|or you can walk right on by.
What did the court say in its ruling. That opinion counts.
What have been the sum of all the courts opinions in this matter. Most
courts have ruled pretty much the same way on the matter of the Ten
Commandments.
o Congress Shall Make No Law Respecting the Establishment of
Reason. Neal Blanchett, Esq. comments on the Ten Commandments controversy.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/blanch2.htm
The Ten Commandments Issues
[Please note that the following links will take you off this website. As
of February 27, 2002, there are 24 articles on this website which reference
the Ten Commandments issues. To locate them and any future additions,
please use our site search engine page at Search Page
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/searchform.htm ]
Legal Developments: Year 2002
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_10cb.htm
Legal Developments: Year 2001
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_10c8.htm
Legal Developments: 1999 & 2000
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_10c3.htm
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|Ok, so how is simply displaying the Ten Commandments, make a law respecting
>:|an establishment of religion?
Invalid question.
You are assuming that one has to establish a religion to be in violation of
the Establishment Clause.
That isn't so as I have already posted to you showing.
GOP
Look you arrogant ass, the Congress shall make no law and they haven't.
'nuff said.
Displaying the Ten Commandments is not establishing law.
GOP
That's right, hence the post....
Displaying the Ten Commandments is NOT establishing a law.
Have a nice day.
GOP
<bucke...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:g6eqjv02i63jv1ikg...@4ax.com...
No, it's a totally appropriate and valid question and it remains unanswered
in this newsgroup.
Zepp, No Weasels in the Bush
How would you, presumably a Christian, feel if you walked into a court
and saw a big sign reading "Allahya akbar" in Arabic script?
>The commandments are simply in the hall. You can stop and gaze, read them -
>or you can walk right on by.
Why have them there? They have little or nothing to do with civil
law.
>
*******************
"But always remember, my friend: when politicians begin demanding patriotism of the people of a country, fascism has arrived."
-- Shaffik, in Ken Finkleman's "More Tears"
To subscribe to Zepp's News http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zepps_News/join
For essays ONLY, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/zepps_...@yahoogroups.com/join
For my fiction, http://www.finestplanet.com/~zepp/
Stewart Millen
"GOP" <G...@majorityparty.com> wrote in
news:E3b%a.151870$YN5.99703@sccrnsc01:
>
> "Stewart Millen" <Stewart...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> message
> news:Xns93D89C1D14AF4St...@130.133.1.4...
>> "GOP" <G...@majorityparty.com> wrote in
In the initial document, yes. But the 14th amendment, passed
later, meant that the prohibitions specified in most of the
Bill of Rights also got applied to the states and localities,
and also apply to acts other than laws. They had to toe the
line too.
The state of Kentucky in 1825 could have set up the Church
of Kentucky, banned freedom of the press and assembly, and
instituted torture, had its state constituion allowed it.
And -legally-, you're right, that would not be prohibited
under the original Bill of Rights, which only prohibited
Congress from doing such things. But not after the 14th
amendment.
> Displaying the Ten Commandments is not establishing law.
Again, the precise wording is: "respecting an establishment
of religion".
*AN* establishment, not *THE* establishment.
IOW, this means it doesn't have to be the whole hog
(i.e., one has to declare the "Church of the USA") before an
act becomes unconstitutional. *Any* measure which is passed
whose primary intent and effect is to promote belief over
non-belief, or to promote any religion(s) over any other(s),
is "respecting an establishment of religion" and hence
unconstituional. The reasoning is both logical and makes
good law.
Stewart
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 6.5.8ckt http://www.ipgpp.com/
iQCVAwUBPz1DrDSyh6XxoDgRAQEukAP9EaJpzviyzY1dpAk99BgGE9PnjGMVeTCz
Wf2/Z54CDKUsTrXi8B0vZOZctp37wtx8DTJo+HGWF1PO4AWxNJLsPhisrZcULdxQ
HRw/Ka01LlcEeywyh4mRglvqHv2Yevvzey3nlM2UxnnWTkKOo7bLbb9JUKFHTN0T
jpFn3r9hgl4=
=WoGH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Dave Thompson
"Bung Tater" <bung...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b86e3c9f.03081...@posting.google.com...
> bucke...@nospam.net wrote in message> > >:|I still say people should read what the First Amendment actually
says. No
> > >:|where does it say anything about separation of church and state.
> >
>
> No, it doesn't.
>
> >
> > To be totally correct what you need to say is the words *separation of
> > church and state* will not be found anywhere in the Constitution.
>
> That's what he said.
>
> >
>
> Not when it is necessary to correct the constant squawking from the
> left who insist that "seperation of chuch and state" is in the
> Constitution, when it clearly isn't.
The squawking you hear is actually the religious right bitching and moaning
that they can't use the government as a bully pulpit to support, enforce,
and help spread their religion.
>
> > The concept, the principle of church state separation is found in the
> > unamended constitution
>
> Really? Where?
>
> > and further reinforced with the religious clauses of
> > the BORs.
>
> Nope. The BOR says that Congress shall ENACT NO LAW respecting the
> establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Try getting it right. It says "congress shall make no law respecting the
establishment of religion".
> Unless this monument to the ten commandments has somehow, magically,
> managed to enact congressional legislation establishing a religion,
> then it's perfectly Constitutional.
Your hair splitting is disengenuous. Congress or any government entity
cannot write laws, fund, or support a religion or religion in general in any
way. Since the display of the ten commandments serves no secular purpose and
only a religious one it falls under the auspices of the establishment
clause. What Judge Moore is doing is using his position as a government
official to bully people and spread his religious beliefs to people who have
no choice but to be in that court at taxpayer expense. I'm sure you'd be
quite upset if he were a muslim and was displaying the Koran.
There certainly DOES seem to be
> an awful lot of attempts to "prohibit the free exercise thereof",
The free excercise clause DOES NOT include a government official as they
serve in their official capacity. In other words that Judge is free to pray
and practice except when he is setting on that bench. Logically it follows
that if your interpretation were true it would make the establishment clause
moot, which is what I suspect it is that you want.
> however, and one could certainly make the case that a state court
> order to forcibly remove a monument that some consider part and parcel
> of their right to exercise religion freely IS unconstitutional.
And they would be wrong.
Dave Thompson
"GOP" <G...@majorityparty.com> wrote in message
news:vm9%a.150116$o%2.64893@sccrnsc02...
Not according to the courts. Your insistence otherwise matters little.
Dave Thompson
You don't have much in the way of cranial agility or reasoning capacity, do
you? Maybe you should study a bit on first amendment law and then get back
to us.
>
> 'nuff said.
By you, anyway.
>
> Displaying the Ten Commandments is not establishing law.
Displaying the 10C's serves no secular purpose, and the courts have decided
that if no secular purpose is served then it has no place in government.
Stewart Millen
"GOP" <G...@majorityparty.com> wrote in
news:F5b%a.151877$YN5.99808@sccrnsc01:
Oh, we're sory, you must have missed the original post.
Here it is again. I think Judge Moore's conduct fails part
5a and 5d of the test, at the very least.
Stewart
- ------
That is exactly why this was worded this way in 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.
*********************************************
The Establishment Clause
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/estclause.htm
************************************************
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 6.5.8ckt http://www.ipgpp.com/
iQCVAwUBPz1GEjSyh6XxoDgRAQHAMQP8DO2DfxmARDOP1qObVeOfSLA7vJYpbEuN
93TEJ4rFn/o/P4KhPHDaJfR1vE6IB2x2MKgiJOk3KYfibfHHqyRc/uAVS55osKX4
e1rTpS/L9799nMhYy8RfIqlmMliUkSeqpIbJpGWF7ktU0cdbo+qtEo3nfqjixp8f
jRKSoBhwtvg=
=TVIu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Stewart Millen
"Dave Thompson" <dav1...@wdmdx1.com> wrote in
news:vjqh5gb...@corp.supernews.com:
> Displaying the 10C's serves no secular purpose, and the
> courts have decided that if no secular purpose is served
> then it has no place in government.
You just hit the nail on the head.
Stewart
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 6.5.8ckt http://www.ipgpp.com/
iQCVAwUBPz1GbjSyh6XxoDgRAQHBkAP+MI5s63+PjGXvsi8luehOup0TbFp5507F
SrESbD4Q9t+gaLIL3bNch8k7WUIexVQVsP2yoMRIl9d9A1d6s9PG6gjY+bqoMYu4
kGUB779vV6hC47VWllU9IIVRUOg+VghkOIQ2FkGt9MkAtEarcogJdHhFRTMzA0NP
8WQ2Q64tK8A=
=MBTo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Dave Thompson
"GOP" <G...@majorityparty.com> wrote in message
news:F5b%a.151877$YN5.99808@sccrnsc01...
You obviously don't have the ability to think around the literal translation
of "make no law". The courts decided long ago that government must remain
neutral with respect to religion. Displaying religious documents in
government buildings, allowing teacher led prayer, or making laws that
endorsed religion all are ways for congress or government to violate the
establishment clause and the free exercise clause because they all endorse
religion. You obviously are a conservative Christian and believe that your
religion should be endorsed by our government, but the Muslims, agnostics,
and moderate/liberal Christians that walk into that court are having their
religious freedom violated by the display of the Commandments and by Judge
Moore's starting proceedings with a Christian prayer.
SemiScholar
I understand that. Not that your opinion matters. I'm not trying to
get you to agree with me, I'm merely explaining to you why you're
wrong.
> The judge isn't forcing anyone to read the commandments or
>making them go to church is he?
It's clearly an endorsement of certain religious concepts - he admits
as much - indeed, that's the very PURPOSE of the display, explicitly
stated.
>The commandments are simply in the hall. You can stop and gaze, read them -
>or you can walk right on by.
And if there were nothing but Islamic religious parephernalia in the
hall, complete with quotations from Sharia, you wouldn't have a
problem with that, right?
Yeah, right.
Bob LeChevalier
>Look you arrogant ass, the Congress shall make no law and they haven't.
The 14th amendment said that the states as well must respect the
rights guaranteed by the constitution. Thus the states can take no
action any more than Congress can. Judge Moore works for the state.
He's therefore in the wrong.
lojbab
--
lojbab loj...@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
SemiScholar
I believe what GOP is getting at is that the 1st amendment says that
"Congress shall make no law". It's the "make no law" part that he's
focusing on. Displaying the 10 commandments is not "making a law".
I believe strongly that there should be a separation of church and
state, and I know that the courts have consistently ruled against
government-sponsored displays. But I think GOP has an interesting
question, and I would like to hear the answer as well.
Displaying the 10 commandments does not make any law, so why is it
unconstitutional?
As an aside, it is interesting to note that the sculpture in question
is a graven image that is being worshipped. Ironic, no?
GOP
"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:uuiqjv43qjqld70v1...@4ax.com...
> "GOP" <G...@majorityparty.com> wrote:
> >Look you arrogant ass, the Congress shall make no law and they haven't.
>
> The 14th amendment said that the states as well must respect the
> rights guaranteed by the constitution. Thus the states can take no
> action any more than Congress can. Judge Moore works for the state.
> He's therefore in the wrong.
>
He is making no law, establishing no religion.
GOP
"Zepp, No Weasels in the Bush" <ze...@zeppscommentaries.com> wrote in message
news:ngfqjvg8srj486u1r...@4ax.com...
Um how about crimianl law? Thou shalt not kill, steal.......
Carol Lee Smith
> > Why have them there? They have little or nothing to do with civil
> > law.
> Um how about crimianl [sic] law? Thou shalt not kill, steal.......
Um, so what? Thou shalt not kill and thou shalt not steal predate the
10 commandments and those tenets are not exclusive to the 10K.
We would have such whether the 10K existed or not.
70% of the 10K have nothing to do with civil law, and it is actually
contrary to my constitutional religious liberty to be told "thou shalt
have no other gods before me."
My purple 70-boobed cyclops is offended, as am I.
Otis
Ramallah, Tulkarm to be handed over within 10 days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Jerusalem Post Internet Staff Aug. 15, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz and Palestinian Minister for State
Security Mohammad Dahlan reached an agreement to hand over security
responsibility for Kalkilya and Jericho next week.
They also agreed that Ramallah and Tulkarm would be handed over within
ten days, after reaching agreement on how the Palestinians will
prevent and fight terror, Israel Radio reported.
As part of the arrangement, Dahlan will act to prevent all terror
attacks emanating from these cities, and Yasser Arafat will be able to
return to Ramallah after travelling to Gaza to his sister's funeral.
The withdrawals are contingent on there being no shooting and bombing
attacks and the Palestinian security forces beginning to dismantle
militant groups, said Shirli Eden, an Israeli Defense Ministry
spokeswoman.
A pullback from Ramallah has been a top Palestinian priority, in part
to allow Yasser Arafat some freedom of movement. The Palestinian
leader has been confined to his Ramallah headquarters for nearly two
years by Israel.
The agreement was negotiated in back-to-back meetings between Dahlan
and Mofaz late Thursday and on Friday. "We have agreed on Israeli
withdrawal from four Palestinian cities in the West Bank in the coming
two weeks," Dahlan said. "The meeting was very constructive."
He said Israeli checkpoints on the outskirts of the four towns would
be removed.
An Israeli pullback to positions held before the outbreak of fighting
in September 2000 is required by the road map. In a first phase,
Israel withdrew from parts of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank town of
Bethlehem in July.
However, Israel had said it would not withdraw from additional towns
until the Palestinians begin dismantling militant groups, as required
by the peace plan.
Meanwhile, a Palestinian official said Friday the Palestinian
Authority has intercepted US$3 million in foreign funding for Islamic
Jihad.
The money for Islamic Jihad came from "outside, non-Palestinian"
sources, said Abdel Fattah Hamayel, a Cabinet minister in charge of
negotiating with militant groups. He did not provide further detail.
Islamic Jihad officials denied the money was intended for the group.
Haaretz, citing Israeli sources, said the money came from Iran and was
intercepted recently.
Hamayel said the Palestinian Authority is making progress in
identifying sources of funding, monitoring e-mails and phone calls
between people and groups in the Palestinian territories and foreign
countries.
Israeli government spokesman Dore Gold said Friday that any efforts to
halt funding to militants was "positive" but stressed that the seizure
of the US$3 million was only a small step.
"We are still seeing massive amounts going from Saudi Arabia to
Hamas," said Gold who recently testified before the US Senate on
alleged Saudi funding of terrorism. Gold said the Saudi money comes
largely from charities he said have strong ties to the government.
Meanwhile, 73 Palestinian detainees were released from Israeli jails
Friday and driven to the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
The prisoners had been scheduled for release Tuesday, but Prime
Minister Ariel Sharon had them returned to their cells after
Palestinian militants set off two suicide bombings that day.
On Aug. 6, Israel released 334 prisoners, but Palestinians said at the
time too few were senior figures. The Palestinians seek the release of
most of more than 7,000 prisoners held by Israel.
Palestinian spokesman Saeb Erekat dismissed Friday's release as a
public relations ploy. Most of those freed had been held on criminal
charges or for staying in Israel illegally.
This article can also be read at
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1060914314764
Carol Lee Smith
> > Wrong. It reads, "an establishment of" not "the establishment of."
> > Establishment here is NOT a verb. Nor did the author of the
> > clause see it as one.
> Care to prove this argument of yours? Madison most certainly did mean it as
> a verb.
He used an indefinite article. Verbs do not need articles.
If you are as bankrupt in your understanding of parts of speech as you
appear to be, this might help:
http://www.uvsc.edu/owl/handouts/partsosp.html
Please note the "noun endings."
Carol Lee Smith
> Carol Lee Smith <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
> >:|http://candst.tripod.com/boston4.htm
> >:|Is much more dependable than David Barton and Wall Builders.
> >:|There is more here:
> >:|http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-q=Joel+Barlow&sp-a=sp1001b611
> >:|Right, Jim?
> Well, I gave credit that he did get the right president, as far as who
> signed it into law. (grin)
You are such a charitable fellow.
Do you think he appreciates it?
Cary Kittrell
<20954-...@lab.oregonvos.net> <qE8%a.151230$YN5.99619@sccrnsc01> <igaqjv0vc2nmq2nql...@4ax.com> <jW9%a.151592$YN5.99799@sccrnsc01> <ngfqjvg8srj486u1r...@4ax.com> <ixc%a.151551$Ho3.18330@sccrnsc03>
<NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.169.1
<Mime-Version: 1.0
<Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
<In-Reply-To: <ixc%a.151551$Ho3.18330@sccrnsc03>
<Xref: news.arizona.edu alt.education:63074 alt.politics.usa.constitution:265172 alt.politics.usa.republican:1920834 alt.society.liberalism:1175722
70 now? She had a bit of surgery?
Imagine the advertising hook that would give you: "Plastic Surgeon
to the Deities".
-- cary
Cary Kittrell
<
<> > Wrong. It reads, "an establishment of" not "the establishment of."
<> > Establishment here is NOT a verb. Nor did the author of the
<> > clause see it as one.
<
<> Care to prove this argument of yours? Madison most certainly did mean it as
<> a verb.
<
<He used an indefinite article. Verbs do not need articles.
<
Just as in the case of Jefferson's use of "it's", I believe that
the confusion here may again be resolved if we remember
the ubiquity of the flea in colonial times. In this particular
it was Ye Olde Siphonapterid Precision Spelling, Marching and Aphorism
Society, and they had gotten as far as "an" in their reliable
show-stopper, in which they would spell out "an airedale a day keeps the
chirgeon away" -- when an alert Flounder noticed, raised his fist, and...
well, the rest is hystory.
-- cary
Bob LeChevalier
He is using his official position in an act "respecting an
establishment of religion". The USSC defined that phrase in 1947. He
is in violation.
Bob LeChevalier
>I believe what GOP is getting at is that the 1st amendment says that
>"Congress shall make no law". It's the "make no law" part that he's
>focusing on. Displaying the 10 commandments is not "making a law".
Our society is designed such that all acts of government not
explicitly authorized are forbidden.
Every act by a government official on the job is either authorized by
law, or it is not. If it is not authorized, then the official does
not have the power to do it. If it is authorized and it pertains to
religion, then the law that authorizes it has authorized an act
respecting an establishment of religion.
Thus, if Judge Moore has the power to put that stone in the rotunda,
then the law which allowed him that power is unconstitutional. If he
does not have that power authorized by law, then his action is
forbidden.
Smitty Jagermanjenson
That's not what the establishment clause says.
Displaying a protestant religious symbol on government property, a court, no
less, is in effect establishing (supporting) that particular religious
belief.
You can't get around that.
Smitty Jagermanjenson
"GOP" <G...@majorityparty.com> wrote in message
news:jW9%a.151592$YN5.99799@sccrnsc01...
>
> "SemiScholar" <noe...@spambegone.com> wrote in message
> news:igaqjv0vc2nmq2nql...@4ax.com...
> > On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 17:21:26 GMT, "GOP" <G...@majorityparty.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Joni Rathbun" <jrat...@orednet.org> wrote in message
> > >news:Pine.LNX.4.44.030815...@lab.oregonvos.net...
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, 15 Aug 2003, GOP wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> > "SemiScholar" <noe...@spambegone.com> wrote in message
> > >> > news:8t3qjvo8ll8shtnvm...@4ax.com...
> > >> > > On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 00:48:56 -0400, "Brian"
<blon...@comcast.net>
> > >> > > wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >"Joni Rathbun" <jrat...@orednet.org> wrote in message
> > >> > >
>news:Pine.LNX.4.44.030814...@lab.oregonvos.net...
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> On Fri, 15 Aug 2003, Brian wrote:
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> > "The Fair and Balanced Weasel" <zeppn...@finestplanet.com>
> >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >The exact wording is "Congress shall make no law respecting the
> > >> > > >establishment of religion."
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Jeeze, brian - if you're goin gto say "the exact wording is:",
you
> > >> > > really ought to get the wording correct...
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > This means exactly that. The establishment of
> > >> > > >a state sponsored national religion is prohibited.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > The difference between "the establishment of religion" and "an
> > >> > > establishment of religion" is huge, and your mistake at that
basic
> > >> > > level renders all of the rest of what you say irrelevant.
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> > or prohibiting the free exercise thereof --->
> > >>
> > >> without government sponsorship or funding.
> > >>
> > >
> > >BZZZZT! Incorrect response.
> > >
> > >Displaying does not make for sponsorship.
> > >
> >
> >
> > You're wrong. The government displaying religious items certainly IS
> > an endorsement of that religion. That's the whole point of the
> > display, in most cases. If it's just for artistic purposes, like if
> > congress were able to arrange for a showing of Michelangelo's Pieta in
> > the capitol building as a part of an art exhibit, that would be fine.
> > But this bozo judge who has the 10 comandments in his courtroom most
> > certainly IS doing it as an endorsement of those comandments, at least
> > 4 of which are completely religious in nature and spefific to one
> > religious tradition.
> >
>
>
> I disagree. The judge isn't forcing anyone to read the commandments or
> making them go to church is he?
> The commandments are simply in the hall. You can stop and gaze, read
them -
> or you can walk right on by.
Answer a simple question.
If the Judge does not want to use his position as a judge to promote his
religion then why not display them in his office?
The fact is that Judge loony has already proudly admitted that he is
promoting religion. If you want to argue that they don't you'll have to
argue with him, also.
Smitty Jagermanjenson
"Cary Kittrell" <ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:bhjnvq$3me$1...@oasis.ccit.arizona.edu...
I believe that as a sign of her displeasure, her boobies multiply.
GOP
> "GOP" <G...@majorityparty.com> wrote:
> >"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
> >news:uuiqjv43qjqld70v1...@4ax.com...
> >> "GOP" <G...@majorityparty.com> wrote:
> >> >Look you arrogant ass, the Congress shall make no law and they
haven't.
> >>
> >> The 14th amendment said that the states as well must respect the
> >> rights guaranteed by the constitution. Thus the states can take no
> >> action any more than Congress can. Judge Moore works for the state.
> >> He's therefore in the wrong.
> >
> >He is making no law, establishing no religion.
>
> He is using his official position in an act "respecting an
> establishment of religion". The USSC defined that phrase in 1947. He
> is in violation.
>
Nope, he's displaying the Ten Commandments. Nothing more.
SemiScholar
<Stewart...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>"Dave Thompson" <dav1...@wdmdx1.com> wrote in
>news:vjqh5gb...@corp.supernews.com:
>
>
>> Displaying the 10C's serves no secular purpose, and the
>> courts have decided that if no secular purpose is served
>> then it has no place in government.
>
>You just hit the nail on the head.
>
What nail? What head? I'd like to see a good answer to the point
that having the sculpture in the judge's court does not involve the
making of any law, and therefore does not violate the first amendment.
If it's just that it serves no secular purpose, then that would apply
to ALL artwork there, or none. But that's a different issue anyway,
the 1st amendment talks about "make no LAW".
GOP
"Smitty Jagermanjenson" <o...@wonet.com> wrote in message
news:ZTd%a.1538$kK4....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
You can't define it so specifically. The Ten Commandments are not exclusive
to Protestant religions. (Note plural).