"A LETTER FROM PAUL HARVEY"
Sharon
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin"
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 09:10:42 -0800
Hi everyone,
A letter I sent to a number of family members this morning, in response
to the rant/letter from "Paul Harvey" below.
....
Sincerely,
Kevin
-----Forwarded Message-----
From: Kevin
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 08:48:18 -0800
Dear Grandma, et. al,
I seriously doubt Paul Harvey wrote this letter.
The writer asks, "What's the big deal" with an ideal of Christian
religious purity?
In February of 1844, the city of Philadelphia experienced bloody riots
over which Bible to use to instruct school-children. The Catholics
wanted the Douay version; the Protestants wanted King James. Over the
years, ethnic and religious tensions mounted, and finally violence broke
out. "[R]ampaging mobs of Roman Catholics and Protestants shot,
clubbed, and otherwise attacked one another in what was known as the
"Philadelphia Bible Riots."" "[S]even dead on site with two more to die
later, and at least 20 wounded. Property damage totaled $250,000, big
money in the 1840's."
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/boston3.htm
The battles over religion almost always occur between members of faith,
not between the secular and the religious. Note the colonial practice
by establishment Christians of hanging Quakers because they wanted to
convert others to their faith within the commonwealth of Massachusetts.
The fifth commandment, "Thou shalt not kill," was overlooked in favor of
religious purity.
I ask instead, "What's the alternative to an ideal of Christian
religious purity?"
Religious liberty. The acceptance of everyones' right to religious
freedom of conscience.
This is not Jerusalem, Baghdad, or Beijing. This is America. The
writer below just doesn't get it.
The writer argues for mob rule with respect to religion. I.e., our side
is bigger than your side; our side has more churches; so suck it up and
prepare to get your face shoved in the snow. No. That's wrong. Our
Constitution explicitly protects the rights of the minority from the
majority in just these types of situations.
This is not the Soviet Union, where everyone has to atheistically pure.
This is America. The writer below just doesn't get it.
America was founded on Enlightenment principles of empathy, fairness,
equality, and responsibility. Instead of a divine Christian king, our
governing document, the Constitution, contains no reference to
Christianity or God. It explicitly rejects religious tests for public
office. The Bill of Rights' Establishment Clause forever separated
religion from government.
Founders James Madison, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington,
Benjamin Franklin, were Deists, believers in an impersonal Creator no
longer interacting with the universe. I.e., not Christian. So was
Abraham Lincoln.
Religious purity only interests those so insecure in their faith that
they think 30-second football prayers and "Merry Christmas" instead of
"Happy Holidays" really make a difference. As Benjamin Franklin put it:
"When a Religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it
does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so
that its Professors are obliged to call for help of the Civil Power, it
is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one." - Benjamin Franklin
(from a letter to Richard Price, October 9, 1780;)
Religious purity has never been the ideal of our government nor of our
Constitution. Those on the radical religious right just want you to
believe that.
Happy Holidays, Merry Christmas, who cares. Show a little love and
kindness to your fellow community members. I think that's what Jesus
was getting at.
Kevin
On Fri, 2004-12-24 at 07:17, Millie wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: To:
Cc: Sent: Friday, December 24, 2004 12:10 AM
A LETTER FROM PAUL HARVEY
Paul Harvey says: -"I don't believe in Santa Claus, but I'm not >> going
to > sue
> > > somebody for singing a Ho-Ho-Ho song in December. I don't agree
> > with > Darwin,
> > > but I didn't go out and hire a lawyer when my high school
> > teacher taught > his
> > > theory of evolution.
> > > Life, liberty or your pursuit of happiness will not be endangered
> > > because
> > > someone says a 30-second prayer before a football game.
> > > So what's the big deal? It's not like somebody is up there reading the
> > > entire book of Acts. They're just talking to a God they believe in and
> > > asking him to grant safety to the players on the field and the fans
> > > going
> > > home from the game.
> > > "But it's a Christian prayer," some will argue. Yes, and this
> > is the > United
> > > States of America, a country founded on Christian principles.
> > > According to
> > > our very own phone book, Christian churches outnumber all
> > others better > than
> > > 200-to-1. So what would you expect-somebody chanting Hare
> > Krishna? If I > went
> > > to a football game in Jerusalem, I would expect to hear a Jewish
> > > prayer.
> > > If I went to a soccer game in Baghdad, I would expect to hear a Muslim
> > > prayer. If I went to a ping pong match in China, I would expect to
> > > hear
> > > someone pray to Buddha. And I wouldn't be offended. It wouldn't bother
> > > me
> > > one bit. When in Rome..
> > > "But what about the atheists?" is another argument. What about
> > them? > Nobody
> > > is asking them to be baptized.. We're not going to pass the collection
> > > plate. Just humor us for 30 seconds.. If that's asking too much, bring
> > > a
> > > Walkman or a pair of ear plugs. Go to the bathroom. Visit the
> > > concession
> > > stand. Call your lawyer! Unfortunately, one or two will make
> > that call. > One
> > > or two will tell thousands what they can and cannot do. I don't think
> > > a
> > > short prayer at a football game is going to shake the world's
> > > foundations.
> > > Christians are just sick and tired of turning the other cheek while
> > > our
> > > courts strip us of all our rights. Our parents and grandparents
> > taught us > to
> > > pray before eating, to pray before we go to sleep.
> > > Our Bible tells us to pray without ceasing. Now a handful of people
> > > and
> > > their lawyers are telling us to cease praying. God, help us. And if
> > > that
> > > last sentence offends you, well..........just sue me.
> > > The silent majority has been silent too long.. it's time we let
> > that one > or
> > > two who scream loud enough to be heard, that the vast majority don't
> > > care
> > > what they want.. it is time the majority rules! It's time we
> > tell them, > you
> > > don't have to pray.. you don't have to say the pledge of allegiance,
> > > you
> > > don't have to believe in God or attend services that honor Him.
> > That is > your
> > > right, and we will honor your right.. but by golly, you are no
> > longer > going
> > > to take our rights away . we are fighting back.. and we WILL WIN!
> > > God bless us one and all, especially those who denounce Him... God
> > > bless
> > > America, despite all her faults, she is still the greatest nation of
> > > all.....
> > > God bless our service men who are fighting to protect our right
> > to pray > and
> > > worship God...
> > > May 2005 be the year the silent majority is heard and we put
> > God back as > the
> > > foundation of our families and institutions.
> > > Keep looking up..... In God WE Trust. If you agree with this,
> > please > p.a.s.s
> > > it on. If not, delete.
Pastor Dave
the Mt. Everest, "Sharon"
<ma...@creation-vs-evolution.us> pontificated:
> Founders James Madison, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington,
> Benjamin Franklin, were Deists, believers in an impersonal Creator no
> longer interacting with the universe. I.e., not Christian. So was
> Abraham Lincoln.
Impersonal? Is that why the Declaration of
Independence claims that out rights are granted by our
Creator?
> Religious purity only interests those so insecure in their faith that
> they think 30-second football prayers and "Merry Christmas" instead of
> "Happy Holidays" really make a difference. As Benjamin Franklin put it:
Wrong. Purity is a commendable attribute.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditation." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
Ken Shackleton
> On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 21:20:04 +0000 (UTC), while scaling
> the Mt. Everest, "Sharon"
> <ma...@creation-vs-evolution.us> pontificated:
>
>
>> Founders James Madison, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, George
>> Washington, Benjamin Franklin, were Deists, believers in an
>> impersonal Creator no longer interacting with the universe. I.e.,
>> not Christian. So was Abraham Lincoln.
>
> Impersonal? Is that why the Declaration of
> Independence claims that out rights are granted by our
> Creator?
>
>
>> Religious purity only interests those so insecure in their faith that
>> they think 30-second football prayers and "Merry Christmas" instead
>> of "Happy Holidays" really make a difference. As Benjamin Franklin
>> put it:
>
> Wrong. Purity is a commendable attribute.
Unfortunately, every person on the planet will have his/her own opinion on
how to best achieve this "purity". History has demonstrated that pursuit of
"purity" has typically involved the purging of the "impure" through
isolation and murder.
Purity may be a commendable goal [it can never be achieved, therefore will
never be an attribute] only when you are talking about your own personal
purity [however that is defined]. When people attempt to force others to
live to their own standards, death, destruction, and misery is the
inevitable result for those that are politically disadvantaged.
Purity is a farce....it is simply an excuse to subjugate and murder those
that you disagree with. Nothing [in the human spirit] is "pure"....nothing
[in the human spirit] will ever be "pure".
--
Ken Shackleton
'I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has
endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended
us to forgo their use'
- Galileo Galilei
Pastor Dave
the Mt. Everest, Ken Shackleton
<ken.sha...@shaw.ca> pontificated:
>>> Religious purity only interests those so insecure in their faith that
>>> they think 30-second football prayers and "Merry Christmas" instead
>>> of "Happy Holidays" really make a difference. As Benjamin Franklin
>>> put it:
>>
>> Wrong. Purity is a commendable attribute.
>
>Unfortunately, every person on the planet will have his/her own opinion on
>how to best achieve this "purity". History has demonstrated that pursuit of
>"purity" has typically involved the purging of the "impure" through
>isolation and murder.
The following makes a point.
1 Corinthians 5:9-10
9) I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with
fornicators:
10) Yet not altogether the fornicators of this world,
or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with
idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
Individual purity is what I was referring to. Read and
follow the Ten Commandments. It's hard to go wrong
with those. :)
I believe in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour. I
wish all did, but that isn't reality.
>Purity may be a commendable goal [it can never be achieved, therefore will
>never be an attribute] only when you are talking about your own personal
>purity [however that is defined]. When people attempt to force others to
>live to their own standards, death, destruction, and misery is the
>inevitable result for those that are politically disadvantaged.
Well this is really not accurate, since the laws of any
land are about legislating morality. Saying that
murder is wrong, is a moral judgment, for example.
There are murderers who feel justified, as you have
pointed out, so yes, it is moral judgment that it is
wrong, which is imposed on those who feel morally
justified in what they did.
>Purity is a farce....it is simply an excuse to subjugate and murder those
>that you disagree with. Nothing [in the human spirit] is "pure"....nothing
>[in the human spirit] will ever be "pure".
In the human mind, no. But that is not the only
option. Nor is purity an excuse. It is a worthy goal
and if one falls short, one is still in much better
shape than those who never tried. I mean, who would
you rather have as a neighbor? One who seek to do
good, from a pure motive, or one who doesn't care about
doing good, nor about you or your peace?
John Ings
<newsgr...@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>Well this is really not accurate, since the laws of any
>land are about legislating morality.
No they're not 'Pastor'. Nor should they be.
>Saying that
>murder is wrong, is a moral judgment, for example.
There are laws against murder and theft because people don't want to
be murdered and robbed. Morality has little to do with it. Adultry is
immoral, it isn't illegal. Jaywalking is illegal, it isn't immoral.
## Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage.
Douglas Berry
<newsgr...@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> drained his beer, leaned back
in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
>On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 21:20:04 +0000 (UTC), while scaling
>the Mt. Everest, "Sharon"
><ma...@creation-vs-evolution.us> pontificated:
>
>
>> Founders James Madison, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington,
>> Benjamin Franklin, were Deists, believers in an impersonal Creator no
>> longer interacting with the universe. I.e., not Christian. So was
>> Abraham Lincoln.
>
>Impersonal? Is that why the Declaration of
>Independence claims that out rights are granted by our
>Creator?
Not granted - endowed. As in given as a characteristic.
>
>> Religious purity only interests those so insecure in their faith that
>> they think 30-second football prayers and "Merry Christmas" instead of
>> "Happy Holidays" really make a difference. As Benjamin Franklin put it:
>
>Wrong. Purity is a commendable attribute.
The Nazis certainly thought so.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
Ken Shackleton
--
Ken Shackleton
'I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has
endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended
us to forgo their use'
- Galileo Galilei
"Pastor Dave" <newsgr...@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:jbuqs099eao10n690...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 13:19:07 +0000 (UTC), while scaling
> the Mt. Everest, Ken Shackleton
> <ken.sha...@shaw.ca> pontificated:
>
>
>>>> Religious purity only interests those so insecure in their faith that
>>>> they think 30-second football prayers and "Merry Christmas" instead
>>>> of "Happy Holidays" really make a difference. As Benjamin Franklin
>>>> put it:
>>>
>>> Wrong. Purity is a commendable attribute.
>>
>>Unfortunately, every person on the planet will have his/her own opinion on
>>how to best achieve this "purity". History has demonstrated that pursuit
>>of
>>"purity" has typically involved the purging of the "impure" through
>>isolation and murder.
>
> The following makes a point.
>
> 1 Corinthians 5:9-10
>
> 9) I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with
> fornicators:
> 10) Yet not altogether the fornicators of this world,
> or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with
> idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
>
>
> Individual purity is what I was referring to. Read and
> follow the Ten Commandments. It's hard to go wrong
> with those. :)
>
> I believe in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour. I
> wish all did, but that isn't reality.
>
>
>>Purity may be a commendable goal [it can never be achieved, therefore will
>>never be an attribute] only when you are talking about your own personal
>>purity [however that is defined]. When people attempt to force others to
>>live to their own standards, death, destruction, and misery is the
>>inevitable result for those that are politically disadvantaged.
>
> Well this is really not accurate, since the laws of any
> land are about legislating morality. Saying that
> murder is wrong, is a moral judgment, for example.
> There are murderers who feel justified, as you have
> pointed out, so yes, it is moral judgment that it is
> wrong, which is imposed on those who feel morally
> justified in what they did.
>
>
>>Purity is a farce....it is simply an excuse to subjugate and murder those
>>that you disagree with. Nothing [in the human spirit] is "pure"....nothing
>>[in the human spirit] will ever be "pure".
>
> In the human mind, no. But that is not the only
> option. Nor is purity an excuse. It is a worthy goal
> and if one falls short, one is still in much better
> shape than those who never tried. I mean, who would
> you rather have as a neighbor? One who seek to do
> good, from a pure motive, or one who doesn't care about
> doing good, nor about you or your peace?
>
>
Ken Shackleton
>>that you disagree with. Nothing [in the human spirit] is "pure"....nothing
>>[in the human spirit] will ever be "pure".
>
> option. Nor is purity an excuse. It is a worthy goal
> and if one falls short, one is still in much better
> shape than those who never tried. I mean, who would
> you rather have as a neighbor? One who seek to do
> good, from a pure motive, or one who doesn't care about
> doing good, nor about you or your peace?
>
I would agree that when one attempts to better oneself, failing is still
better than never trying in the first place. Perhaps it is an issue of
semantics....but the term "purity" brings to mind [to me] visions of Nazi
death camps and "ethnic cleansing" to use a more modern term.
The goal of purity has often been used for evil political purposes;
however...so long as my neighbor repects the rights of freedom and peace for
others around him....what he does in his spare time is really irrelevent.
Pastor Dave
>OH....by the way....Merry Christmas!
I don't celebrate it, but thank you for the kind
thought.
Pastor Dave
the Mt. Everest, Ken Shackleton
<ken.sha...@shaw.ca> pontificated:
>>>Purity is a farce....it is simply an excuse to subjugate and murder those
>>>that you disagree with. Nothing [in the human spirit] is "pure"....nothing
>>>[in the human spirit] will ever be "pure".
>>
>> In the human mind, no. But that is not the only
>> option. Nor is purity an excuse. It is a worthy goal
>> and if one falls short, one is still in much better
>> shape than those who never tried. I mean, who would
>> you rather have as a neighbor? One who seek to do
>> good, from a pure motive, or one who doesn't care about
>> doing good, nor about you or your peace?
>>
>
>I would agree that when one attempts to better oneself, failing is still
>better than never trying in the first place. Perhaps it is an issue of
>semantics....but the term "purity" brings to mind [to me] visions of Nazi
>death camps and "ethnic cleansing" to use a more modern term.
>The goal of purity has often been used for evil political purposes;
>however...so long as my neighbor repects the rights of freedom and peace for
>others around him....what he does in his spare time is really irrelevent.
They speak of a physical cleansing of what they
consider dirty. I am speaking of a virtuous character.
Pastor Dave
the Mt. Everest, Douglas Berry
<pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> pontificated:
>On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 11:00:47 +0000 (UTC), Pastor Dave
><newsgr...@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> drained his beer, leaned back
>in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
>>On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 21:20:04 +0000 (UTC), while scaling
>>the Mt. Everest, "Sharon"
>><ma...@creation-vs-evolution.us> pontificated:
>>
>>
>>> Founders James Madison, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington,
>>> Benjamin Franklin, were Deists, believers in an impersonal Creator no
>>> longer interacting with the universe. I.e., not Christian. So was
>>> Abraham Lincoln.
>>
>>Impersonal? Is that why the Declaration of
>>Independence claims that out rights are granted by our
>>Creator?
>
>Not granted - endowed. As in given as a characteristic.
Rights are not a characteristic. It simply means that
from birth, our rights come from our Creator and not
government.
>>> Religious purity only interests those so insecure in their faith that
>>> they think 30-second football prayers and "Merry Christmas" instead of
>>> "Happy Holidays" really make a difference. As Benjamin Franklin put it:
>>
>>Wrong. Purity is a commendable attribute.
>
>The Nazis certainly thought so.
Twisting a good thing into something sick, is a tactic
that you share with the Nazis.
Sharon
> On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 17:06:05 +0000 (UTC), while scaling
> the Mt. Everest, Douglas Berry
> <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> pontificated:
>>>Wrong. Purity is a commendable attribute.
>>
>>The Nazis certainly thought so.
>
> Twisting a good thing into something sick, is a tactic
> that you share with the Nazis.
The entire point was initially, the "Letter from Paul Harvey" was a fraud.
Even if anyone were twisting anything good to bad -- what does that make
those who pen outright lies, and stamping the name of a celebrity on it to
validate them?
Or making up quotes and slapping the name of Charles Darwin on them in an
attempt to discredit what Darwin *did* say?
Don't you think that's pretty sick -- stooping to lies and deceit to win
one's cause?
Pastor Dave
the Mt. Everest, "Sharon"
<ma...@creation-vs-evolution.us> pontificated:
>"Pastor Dave" <newsgr...@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:6bfrs0l65l8orghin...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 17:06:05 +0000 (UTC), while scaling
>> the Mt. Everest, Douglas Berry
>> <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> pontificated:
>
>>>>Wrong. Purity is a commendable attribute.
>>>
>>>The Nazis certainly thought so.
>>
>> Twisting a good thing into something sick, is a tactic
>> that you share with the Nazis.
>
>The entire point was initially, the "Letter from Paul Harvey" was a fraud.
That may very well be. I did not comment on that
aspect of the conversation. My discussion was in
response to someone who mentioned purity.
>Even if anyone were twisting anything good to bad -- what does that make
>those who pen outright lies, and stamping the name of a celebrity on it to
>validate them?
They should not do that, obviously.
>Or making up quotes and slapping the name of Charles Darwin on them in an
>attempt to discredit what Darwin *did* say?
>
>Don't you think that's pretty sick -- stooping to lies and deceit to win
>one's cause?
Of course it is. I never denied that.
Bigdakine
>From: Pastor Dave newsgr...@nospam-tampabay.rr.com
>Date: 12/25/04 1:00 AM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <v1jqs0d3maslvbp0u...@4ax.com>
>
>On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 21:20:04 +0000 (UTC), while scaling
>the Mt. Everest, "Sharon"
><ma...@creation-vs-evolution.us> pontificated:
>
>
>> Founders James Madison, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington,
>> Benjamin Franklin, were Deists, believers in an impersonal Creator no
>> longer interacting with the universe. I.e., not Christian. So was
>> Abraham Lincoln.
>
>Impersonal? Is that why the Declaration of
>Independence claims that out rights are granted by our
>Creator?
Why do you suppose they chose the word "Creator" instead of "God" or "Jesus"
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being
as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the
generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. "
- Letter to John Adams, 11 April 1823
Stuart
Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
"To err is human, but to really foul things up requires a creationist"
"Creationists aren't impervious to Logic: They're oblivious to it."
Bigdakine
Leviticus 26: 1,2
[...else...]
Ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters ye shall eat.
Leviticus 26:29
Roast Child with Cornbread Stuffing
Turkey may be substituted for this classic holiday feast.
Although time consuming, this dish seems to take longer than it actually does;
as the entire house is filled with such a heavenly aroma,
the waiting becomes almost unbearable.
1 whole child, cleaned and de-headed
1 batch cornbread stuffing (see index)
½ cup melted butter
Remove the giblets from the infant and set aside.
Stuff the cavity where the child?s genitals and anus were located
using ½ cup per pound of meat.
Tie the arms flat to the body, then pull the skin flaps up to close the cavity.
Now tie the thighs up tight to hold it all together.
Place breast side up in a large metal roasting pan.
Bake in 325° oven covered for 2 hours.
Remove cover, stick a cooking thermometer deep into one of the
baby?s buttocks and cook uncovered till thermometer reads 190°,
about another hour.
Pro-Choice Po-Boy
Soft-shelled crabs serve just as well in this classic southern delicacy.
The sandwich originated in New Orleans, where an abundance of abortion clinics
thrive and hot French bread is always available.
2 cleaned fetuses, head on
2 eggs
1 tablespoon yellow mustard
1 cup seasoned flour
oil enough for deep frying
1 loaf French bread
Lettuce
tomatoes
mayonnaise, etc.
Marinate the fetuses in the egg-mustard mixture.
Dredge thoroughly in flour.
Fry at 375° until crispy golden brown.
Remove and place on paper towels.
Holiday Youngster
One can easily adapt this recipe to ham, though as presented,
it violates no religious taboos against swine.
1 large toddler or sma
Pastor Dave
wrap till remaining corner is left.
Brush with egg, seal, and allow to sit on the seal for
a few minutes.
Fry the rolls:
325° if using egg roll wraps, 350° for spring roll wraps.
Deep fry in peanut oil till crispy golden brown, drain on paper towels.
Lemon Neonate
Turkey serves just as well, and in fact even looks a bit like a
well-dressed baby. By the time you turn the child?s breast into
cutlets, it will be indistinguishable. The taste of young human,
although similar to turkey (and chicken) often can be wildly
different depending upon what he or she has consumed during its
10 to 14 months of life...
4 well chosen cutlets (from the breasts of 2 healthy neonates)
2 large lemons (fresh lemons always, if possible)
Olive oil
Green onions
Salt
pepper
cornstarch
neonate stock (chicken, or turkey stock is fine)
garlic
parsley
fresh cracked black pepper
Season and sauté the cutlets in olive oil till golden brown, remove.
Add the garlic and onions and cook down a bit.
Add some lemon juice and some zest, then de-glaze with stock.
Add a little cornstarch (dissolved in cold water) to the sauce.
You are just about there, Pour the sauce over the cutlets,
top with parsley, lemon slices and cracked pepper.
Serve with spinach salad, macaroni and cheese (homemade) and iced tea...
Spaghetti with Real Italian Meatballs
If you don?t have an expendable bambino on hand,
you can use a pound of ground pork instead.
The secret to
R. Baldwin
> On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 21:20:04 +0000 (UTC), while scaling
> the Mt. Everest, "Sharon"
> <ma...@creation-vs-evolution.us> pontificated:
>
>
>> Founders James Madison, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington,
>> Benjamin Franklin, were Deists, believers in an impersonal Creator no
>> longer interacting with the universe. I.e., not Christian. So was
>> Abraham Lincoln.
>
> Impersonal? Is that why the Declaration of
> Independence claims that out rights are granted by our
> Creator?
>
In fact, it is.
Thomas Jefferson, the principal author of the Declaration of Independence,
more than once wrote against the divinity of Jesus, and even wrote his own
version of the Gospels as he conceived they ought to have been written.
Jefferson activly worked to end the state establishment of religion in
Virginia. He was charged by his critics of being an Atheist, which wasn't
exactly true, but he certainly wasn't a believer in the Holy Trinity.
John Adams, one of the members of the committee charged with writing the
Declaration, played a key role in moving conservative Massachuesetts toward
religious freedom. While in Congress he sampled a variety of congregations.
Adams seems to have kept more traditional views on Religion than Jefferson,
but he did write against the superstitious nature of 18th and early 19th
century religion.
Franklin, the senior member of the committee, lived a long life and began
writing for the public when he was a teenager. As a youth he had run away
from the strict Puritans of Cotton Mather's Boston. His views on religion
changed over the years, and were sometimes colored by the false personae of
his pseuodonyms, but it is pretty clear he was at most indifferent to
Christianity.
[snip]
John Ings
<res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
>>> Founders James Madison, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington,
>>> Benjamin Franklin, were Deists, believers in an impersonal Creator no
>>> longer interacting with the universe. I.e., not Christian. So was
>>> Abraham Lincoln.
>>
>> Impersonal? Is that why the Declaration of
>> Independence claims that out rights are granted by our
>> Creator?
>
>In fact, it is.
>
>Thomas Jefferson, the principal author of the Declaration of Independence,
To say nothing of Thomas Paine, who wrote the first draft, and who
damn sure wasn't a Christian.
>John Adams,
A Unitarian
## The Constitution was made to guard people against good intentions.
Daniel Webster
Daniel Kolle
>On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 21:20:04 +0000 (UTC), while scaling
>the Mt. Everest, "Sharon"
><ma...@creation-vs-evolution.us> pontificated:
>
>
>> Founders James Madison, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington,
>> Benjamin Franklin, were Deists, believers in an impersonal Creator no
>> longer interacting with the universe. I.e., not Christian. So was
>> Abraham Lincoln.
>
>Impersonal? Is that why the Declaration of
>Independence claims that out rights are granted by our
>Creator?
What the DoI do besides DECLARE INDEPENDENCE, Dave?
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 16 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, Krzysztof Penderecki, and Geirr Tveitt are my Gods.
Head of EAC Denial Department and Madly Insane Scientist.
Pastor Dave
the Mt. Everest, "R. Baldwin"
<res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> pontificated:
Now that you have made your speech, what does it have
to do with the fact that what I said is true?
Pastor Dave
the Mt. Everest, Daniel Kolle <DKo...@hotmail.com>
pontificated:
>On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 11:00:47 +0000 (UTC), Pastor Dave
><newsgr...@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> thought hard and said:
>
>>On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 21:20:04 +0000 (UTC), while scaling
>>the Mt. Everest, "Sharon"
>><ma...@creation-vs-evolution.us> pontificated:
>>
>>
>>> Founders James Madison, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington,
>>> Benjamin Franklin, were Deists, believers in an impersonal Creator no
>>> longer interacting with the universe. I.e., not Christian. So was
>>> Abraham Lincoln.
>>
>>Impersonal? Is that why the Declaration of
>>Independence claims that out rights are granted by our
>>Creator?
>
>What the DoI do besides DECLARE INDEPENDENCE, Dave?
And yet, you just love the fact that the courts rule
for separation of church and state, which is not based
on the Constitution, but rather, a private letter that
Jefferson wrote, giving his own personal opinion.
Hypocrite.
Michelle Malkin
"John Ings" <noda...@spam.org> wrote in message
news:ob4ss0lt1vj447jfv...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 23:59:19 +0000 (UTC), "R. Baldwin"
> <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
>
> >>> Founders James Madison, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, George
Washington,
> >>> Benjamin Franklin, were Deists, believers in an impersonal Creator no
> >>> longer interacting with the universe. I.e., not Christian. So was
> >>> Abraham Lincoln.
> >>
> >> Impersonal? Is that why the Declaration of
> >> Independence claims that out rights are granted by our
> >> Creator?
> >
> >In fact, it is.
> >
> >Thomas Jefferson, the principal author of the Declaration of
Independence,
>
> To say nothing of Thomas Paine, who wrote the first draft, and who
> damn sure wasn't a Christian.
Considering that Thomas Paine was not a member representative, how did he
manage to write the first draft?
R. Baldwin
You'll have to refresh my memory. I thought I was answering your question.
What truth did you state?
Pastor Dave
To sum it up, the Creator is not impersonal, because
our rights are endowed by said Creator. If our Creator
was impersonal, then our Creator wouldn't have bothered
doing that for us. The Creator wouldn't have cared one
way or the other.
Double Felix
"Michelle Malkin" <hypa...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "John Ings" <noda...@spam.org> wrote in message
> news:ob4ss0lt1vj447jfv...@4ax.com...
> > On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 23:59:19 +0000 (UTC), "R. Baldwin"
> > <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
> >
> > >>> Founders James Madison, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, George
> Washington,
> > >>> Benjamin Franklin, were Deists, believers in an impersonal Creator no
> > >>> longer interacting with the universe. I.e., not Christian. So was
> > >>> Abraham Lincoln.
> > >>
> > >> Impersonal? Is that why the Declaration of
> > >> Independence claims that out rights are granted by our
> > >> Creator?
> > >
> > >In fact, it is.
> > >
> > >Thomas Jefferson, the principal author of the Declaration of
> Independence,
> >
> > To say nothing of Thomas Paine, who wrote the first draft, and who
> > damn sure wasn't a Christian.
>
> Considering that Thomas Paine was not a member representative, how did he
> manage to write the first draft?
He didn't. At least, that's the first time I've heard this claim. The
authors of the declaration were certainly influenced by Paine, though;
particularly by "Common Sense," IIRC.
- Felix
R. Baldwin
While I happen to myself believe in a personal relationship with God, I
dispute your argument. First, the sentiments of the committee that drafted
the Declaration of Independence are known to be at odds with a personal God.
Second, the language of the Declaration is consistent with the language of
the day, and might easily be dismissed as mere ornament, if not political
expediency. Third, the language is consistent with a deist view of an
impersonal Nature's God. Fourth, if one held the doctrine of an impersonal
God, it would not be difficult to imagine God defining rights and morality
for humanity in general without making it a personal act- just as Congress
and the States enacted the Bill of Rights without personal knowledge of each
American affected.
R. Baldwin
news:nick-091A76.1...@news.west.cox.net...
The first draft was written by Thomas Jefferson on his lap desk in his
rented room in Philadelphia.
catshark
<newsgr...@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 01:34:38 +0000 (UTC), while scaling
>the Mt. Everest, Daniel Kolle <DKo...@hotmail.com>
>pontificated:
>
>>On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 11:00:47 +0000 (UTC), Pastor Dave
>><newsgr...@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> thought hard and said:
>>
>>>On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 21:20:04 +0000 (UTC), while scaling
>>>the Mt. Everest, "Sharon"
>>><ma...@creation-vs-evolution.us> pontificated:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Founders James Madison, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington,
>>>> Benjamin Franklin, were Deists, believers in an impersonal Creator no
>>>> longer interacting with the universe. I.e., not Christian. So was
>>>> Abraham Lincoln.
>>>
>>>Impersonal? Is that why the Declaration of
>>>Independence claims that out rights are granted by our
>>>Creator?
>>
>>What the DoI do besides DECLARE INDEPENDENCE, Dave?
>
>And yet, you just love the fact that the courts rule
>for separation of church and state, which is not based
>on the Constitution, but rather, a private letter that
>Jefferson wrote, giving his own personal opinion.
But it was the "personal" opinion of one of the people who was a major
advocate of of the Establishment clause of the Constitution and presumably
was more than merely familiar with its intended effect. As the Supreme
Court said as early as 1878, in _REYNOLDS v. UNITED STATES_:
At the first session of the first Congress the amendment now
under consideration was proposed with others by Mr. Madison.
It met the views of the advocates of religious freedom, and
was adopted. Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address
to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, took
occasion to say: "Believing with you that religion is a matter
which lies solely between man and his god; that he owes account
to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative
powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, --
I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole
American people which declared that their legislature should
'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of
separation between church and State." Coming as this does from
an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may
be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope
and effect of the amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived
of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free
to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or
subversive of good order.
<http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/reynoldsvus.html>
It is one of the historical peculiarities of our Constitution and the Bill
of Rights that there is no record of most of the actual debates of the
framers, in part because they intended to keep some of their deliberations
secret.
Therefore, in matters of the interpretation of those documents
(*especially* by those who appeal to the "original intent"), the
"non-official" writings by the participants, particularly Madison and, to a
lesser extent, Jefferson and others, are often invoked.
Madison's _Memorial and Remonstrance_ (in opposition to renewal of a
Virginia tax to support the then established church) had much more to do
with the Supreme Court's interpretations of the Establishment clause than
Jefferson's "Danbury letter", since it lead not only to defeat of the tax
but to passage of Jefferson's 'Virginia Bill for Religious Liberty', which
is considered the true archtype for the Establishment clause.
Madison wrote in _Memorial and Remonstrance_:
Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth,
"that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and
the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason
and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then
of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of
every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as
these may dictate. ...
Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society
at large, still less can it be subject to that of the
Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and
vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both
derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the
co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with
regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free
Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds
which separate each department of power be invariably
maintained; but more especially that neither of them be
suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the
rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an
encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive
their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to
it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an
authority derived from them, and are slaves.
<http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/remon.html>
While Madison did not use the phrase "separation of church and state" in
_Memorial and Remonstrance_, there could hardly be a more ringing statement
of the principle.
And the 'Virginia Bill for Religious Liberty' stated:
Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall
be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship,
place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced,
restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods,
nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious
opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to
profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in
matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise
diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
<http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/religion/va-religiousfreedom....>
John Locke, often considered the philosophical godfather of the American
Revolution said "I esteem it above all things necessary to distinguish
exactly the business of civil government from that of religion, and to
settle the just bounds that lie between the one and the other." (A Letter
Concerning Toleration 20, in 6 Works of Locke. London 1823 & 1963 photo
reprint.)
Finally, Jefferson was hardly the only one to use similar phrases. In
1644, Roger Williams, Baptist leader and founder of Rhode Island, said that
there must be a "hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the
church and the wilderness of the world." And Madison himself said that the
Constitution "[s]trongly guarded . . . the separation between Religion and
Government . . . ." (Religious Liberty, p. 90. R. Alley ed. 1985).
More can be found here: <http://review.law.mercer.edu/old/46304.htm>
>
>Hypocrite.
Since we are throwing around names, "Constitutional illiterate" comes to
mind.
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
For every complex problem,
there is a simple,
easy to understand,
incorrect answer.
- Albert Szent-Gyorgyi -
Douglas Berry
<newsgr...@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> drained his beer, leaned back
in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
>And yet, you just love the fact that the courts rule
>for separation of church and state, which is not based
>on the Constitution, but rather, a private letter that
>Jefferson wrote, giving his own personal opinion.
Find me a single court case that references Jefferson's personal
letters as a legal precedent.
What the courts use is the First Amendment, which has from the
beginni9ng been used to insure a secular government.
R. Baldwin
news:fkass0ht2rrijh48e...@4ax.com...
[snip from a fine post]
>
> It is one of the historical peculiarities of our Constitution and the Bill
> of Rights that there is no record of most of the actual debates of the
> framers, in part because they intended to keep some of their deliberations
> secret.
Actually, the House debate on the Bill of Rights was recorded in Annals of
Congress, and may be viewed online. The senate debate was not recorded.
See Annals of Congress, House of Representatives, 1st Congress, 1st Session,
pp 757-758.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=380
(mind the wrap)
[snip]
Nantko Schanssema
Let me guess: Thomas Paine and several other lurkers supported
Jefferson in snail-mail.
regards,
Nantko
--
The invisible and the nonexistent look very much alike. (Delos McKown)
John Ings
<hypa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >Thomas Jefferson, the principal author of the Declaration of
>Independence,
>>
>> To say nothing of Thomas Paine, who wrote the first draft, and who
>> damn sure wasn't a Christian.
>
>Considering that Thomas Paine was not a member representative, how did he
>manage to write the first draft?
"Thomas Jefferson has always been credited with having written the
Declaration of Independence but evidence now available reveals that
Thomas Paine produced the draft for this document. In Common Sense he
argues that a manifesto be published which could be sent to other
nations and would tell why America was forced to break ties with
Britain. The causes which impel the separation are proclaimed in
Common Sense.
"On 11th June 1776 Congress voted for such a document. A committee of
five was appointed but at the last moment one was obliged to answer a
call to his home and Jefferson took his place. Paine produced a draft,
of which the John Adams' family still retains a copy.
"This carries a clause to end slavery and this clause was omitted from
the Declaration. Had it been included, the Civil War, ninety years
later, would not have been fought. Why was this clause significant?
Because slavery appalled Paine but Jefferson, at his death, still
owned 200 slaves and any draft from him would not have included this
clause.
"The phrasing in the draft and the peculiar use of capitals and the
spelling of words brand it to be the work of Thomas Paine. It was
condensed, mutilated and then submitted to Congress by the chairman of
the Committee, Thomas Jefferson. It is far easier to modify a draft on
hand than to start with blank paper and, in twenty days, produce such
a Declaration of Independence.
"It was typical of the integrity of Paine that he never openly claimed
the credit, although it was hinted."
http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/thomaspaine.htm
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/lewis/lewis02.htm
## No falsehood is so fatal as that which is made an article of faith
Thomas Paine
catshark
Hence the modifier "most". ;-)
Those were summaries rather than transcripts and may have missed
considerable nuance in the debates. Not recorded, though particularly
important, were the proceedings in the "Committee of Eleven" (chaired by
Madison) which fashioned the version voted on by the House of
Representatives. And perhaps most significantly, the debates of the Joint
House-Senate Committee, which actually framed the version sent to the
States for ratification, were not recorded.
As can be seen at the following site, considering its importance in the
American scheme of government and our subsequent jurisprudence, the record
of the framing of the Bill of Rights is amazingly scant.
<http://www.constitution.org/dhbr.htm>
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
In the name of the bee
And of the butterfly
And of the breeze, amen
- Emily Dickinson -
Pastor Dave
the Mt. Everest, "R. Baldwin"
<res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> pontificated:
>> To sum it up, the Creator is not impersonal, because
>> our rights are endowed by said Creator. If our Creator
>> was impersonal, then our Creator wouldn't have bothered
>> doing that for us. The Creator wouldn't have cared one
>> way or the other.
>>
>
>While I happen to myself believe in a personal relationship with God, I
>dispute your argument. First, the sentiments of the committee that drafted
>the Declaration of Independence are known to be at odds with a personal God.
>Second, the language of the Declaration is consistent with the language of
>the day, and might easily be dismissed as mere ornament, if not political
>expediency. Third, the language is consistent with a deist view of an
>impersonal Nature's God. Fourth, if one held the doctrine of an impersonal
>God, it would not be difficult to imagine God defining rights and morality
>for humanity in general without making it a personal act- just as Congress
>and the States enacted the Bill of Rights without personal knowledge of each
>American affected.
You've made a good argument. But I don't know how much
I buy into this argument, considering the Masonic
influence in our government at that time. While I am
certainly not arguing that they were all Christians, an
impersonal God seems to be a stretch to me. At the end
of this post, I have also responded to some of your
comments above, about it being ornament, etc..
The committee who was assigned to it, consisted of
Benjamin Franklin, Robert Livingston, Thomas Jefferson,
John Adams and Roger Sherman.
And don't forget, others still had to approve of it
before signing it.
BEN FRANKLIN:
Although Ben Franklin did have a Christian upbringing,
he doesn't appear to be a Christian. However, as far
as an impersonal God, Ben was the one who made the
motion to start each session of Congress with a prayer.
Whatever he pictured God to be, it would not seem to be
and impersonal God, since there would be no reason to
pray to an impersonal God. It would be futile. It
would be a waste of time.
ROBERT LIVINGSTON:
I haven't come across too much about him, although he
was a Mason and so it is not likely that he viewed God
as "impersonal" and he used a Bible to swear in George
Washington. A common practice, sure, but still, a
Bible was used. However, I can't say whether he did or
didn't believe in a personal Creator.
THOMAS JEFFERSON:
A known deist. How personal,or impersonal he viewed
God is a good question. I don't think he viewed God as
I do, for sure, but he did seem to refer to the OT
events at times and they certainly dealt with a
personal Creator. But I wouldn't argue Thomas'
beliefs. Put him in whatever category you choose.
As for Christianity, while you are saying that you
believe that the committee was at odds with a personal
God, take a look at these quotes...
JOHN ADAMS:
The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved
independence were the general principles of
Christianity. I will avow that I believed and now
believe that those general principles of Christianity
are as eternal and immutable as the existence and the
attributes of God.
[June 28, 1813; Letter to Thomas Jefferson]
We recognize no Sovereign but God, and no King but
Jesus! [April 18, 1775, on the eve of the
Revolutionary War after a British major ordered John
Adams, John Hancock, and those with them to disperse in
the name of George the Sovereign King of England." ]
ROGER SHERMAN:
He was the only man to sign all four of America's
founding documents.
The following is found on the tablet that marks his
resting place...
He ever adorned the profession of Christianity
which he made in youth;
And distinguished through life for public usefulness,
Died in the prospect of a blessed immortality.
Here's another quote from R.S....
I believe that there is only one living and true God...
That the scriptures of the old and new testaments are a
revelation from God and a complete rule to direct us
how we may glorify and enjoy Him.
And this one...
Let us live no more to ourselves, but to Him who loved
us, and gave Himself to die for us.
And as I said, don't forget, others still had to
approve of it before signing it. For example, I
certainly wouldn't sign a founding document that left
God out of the picture and many of these men who signed
it were Christians. While I may be open to a statement
about God, without getting specific, to avoid
persecution of others, I would never sign a completely
secular founding document. Not only would it be an
affront to me, but it would also leave every one of the
citizens' rights, including life, at the whim of
government, who would not be forced to recognize a
higher authority. There is no doubt that Thomas
Jefferson recognized that much and I know in my heart
that the Christians who signed it did also.
Pastor Dave
the Mt. Everest, "R. Baldwin"
<res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> pontificated:
>"catshark" <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:fkass0ht2rrijh48e...@4ax.com...
>[snip from a fine post]
>>
>> It is one of the historical peculiarities of our Constitution and the Bill
>> of Rights that there is no record of most of the actual debates of the
>> framers, in part because they intended to keep some of their deliberations
>> secret.
>
>Actually, the House debate on the Bill of Rights was recorded in Annals of
>Congress, and may be viewed online. The senate debate was not recorded.
Btw, thanks for the post. I enjoyed it and appreciate
the kind tone in which we are discussing the issue.
Pastor Dave
the Mt. Everest, catshark <cats...@yahoo.com>
pontificated:
Doesn't matter. Another "major advocate" could view it
differently. It is still a letter and you are
defending the use of a non-legal document to make law,
while rejecting the Creator as giving us our rights,
which comes from the DoI, because you say it's not a
legal document. Once again, that makes you a
hypocrite. Before you respond to that, see later in
message where I mention this again and explain it.
Note that your reply started with the word,"But". That
means, "True enough, but...". :) A wise counselor once
told me regarding beginning a sentence with "but"...
Everything after 'but' is b*llsh*t. :)
Sorry for the language. That's what she said though.
I thought it was pretty funny, but it also sank in and
changed the way I speak and write and taught me to
consider carefully the statement of another, before
being ready to jump in with, "But", since it usually
means I am agreeing with what the other person said and
just want to find a way to wiggle out of a truth and
somehow justify my words/actions. It also taught me to
think about how the other person hears or reads it and
that while I'm wiggling and whining, they know it,
';cause they heard/read the word, "But".
It's not true in every case that the word is used in
the beginning of a sentence, but it's just a thought I
thought (huh?) I'd share.. :)
>As the Supreme
>Court said as early as 1878, in _REYNOLDS v. UNITED STATES_:
>
> At the first session of the first Congress the amendment now
> under consideration was proposed with others by Mr. Madison.
> It met the views of the advocates of religious freedom, and
> was adopted. Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address
> to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, took
> occasion to say: "Believing with you that religion is a matter
> which lies solely between man and his god; that he owes account
> to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative
> powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, --
> I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole
> American people which declared that their legislature should
> 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or
> prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of
> separation between church and State." Coming as this does from
> an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may
> be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope
> and effect of the amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived
> of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free
> to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or
> subversive of good order.
>
><http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/reynoldsvus.html>
You have just proved my point for me. You are quoting
a court decision, which is based on a letter. First,
you should admit your hypocrisy. I'm not trying to
hurl insults at you. I am simply stating that your
position is a hypocritical one. You cannot claim that
I shouldn't use a founding document of this country to
illustrate a legal and then claim that you can use
private letters to do exactly that.
Second, what you also fail to see, is that you are
reading it the way you want it to read. I do not see
T.J. as saying that God must be out of government. If
that were accurate, then he wouldn't have penned what
he did in the DoI, whether it was the Christian God he
believed in or not. Note that it says that Congress
cannot make any laws about the establishment of
religion. As T.J. said, no one has to answer to
government for their faith.
As a side note, while some people read it thinking that
the word "respecting" means that government cannot show
any respect to religion, that is not what it means. If
government was to have no respect for religion, the
next statement would not be about the free exercise
thereof. :) No, the word "respecting", means, "with
regard to", i.e., "with respect to".
Anyway, what this quote does NOT say, is that one
cannot express their faith in matters of government.
T.J. knew this, since even mentioning the Creator in
the DoI was an expression of faith (Christian, Deist,
or whatever).
Also notice that it says that government cannot
prohibit the free exercise of religion. So when you
claim that the 10 Commandments can't hang in town, you
are prohibiting the free exercise of religion. This is
a government of the people, by the people and for the
people and it is the peoples' town, not the
governments. And any government that says that a
religious symbol must be taken down, is prohibiting the
free exercise of religion in the peoples' town.
Now before you argue about not all of the people
wanting a particular symbol up, that is not the issue.
Freedom of the EXERCISE (note that word) of religion is
not accomplished by restricting all from exercising
their freedom of religion. They can hang their symbol
up too.
Also don't bother telling me about how one can go to
their church and worship. Then you would be claiming
that they have religious freedom, as long as it's not
in public and that's a ridiculous affront to the
Constitution. The Constitution says that Congress
can't make one single law that prohibits the free
exercise of religion and yet, this would basically lock
them behind closed doors, as if they were the
Christians hiding in houses in the first century, or as
if their religion was something to be ashamed of and
that son, is NOT what America is about!
And don't think that's a stretch, because with the
current tide, that's the way it's going. No one sees
things when they happen in small increments, until one
day they look back and say, "What happened? How'd we
end up like this?". Students can't say "Jesus" in
their graduation speeches, religious displays not
allowed, etc., etc.. Yes, it's starting and along the
way, folks like you will call folks like me nuts. And
one day, when the government is running your life for
you, you'll look back and say, "What happened?".
I can't remember the name of it, but recently (this
year) there was small town that wanted to put up some
Christmas stuff and was prohibited from doing so.
According to the people of this small town, they all
wanted it, but government said no.
In another story, here locally, in town hall, a local
government decided not to put up any Christmas
decorations, because they "didn't want to spend the
taxpayers money fighting law suits".
In some towns (I really should have written down some
names when I saw this stuff on the news), people aren't
even allowed to have religious symbols (this was at
Christmas time) on their front lawns and it is their
property!
Sad, sad, sad.
Now where government is supposed to step in here, is to
defend the Constitution, which says that, "government
shall make no law respecting the establishment of
religion, or the *FREE* EXERCISE thereof and it should
admonish that local government, or castrate it, if
necessary. The government, although it has no place
dictating which religion to practice, must defend it
when someone's Constitutional rights are being
assaulted. And it is a Constitutional right for me to
EXERCISE freedom of religion in this country. Once
again, we do not establish the free exercise of
religion, by banning anything religious. The founding
fathers would roll over in their graves, if they knew
about this. You quote the founding fathers as if they
were against this or something, but do you have any
quotes that demonstrate their saying that the
Constitution prohibits the free exercise of religion
and that no religious symbols or speech are allowed in
public places, or in government buildings? No, of
course you don't, because that isn't how it was. So
you'd better think about that, before you tell me what
I can and cannot do regarding expressions of my faith.
And how long will it be, before this post I'm writing
is considered a violation of the separation of church
and state, because it's a public message? Think it
can't happen? Think again. Religious speech is
already being restricted and there is lobbying to
restrict it further under the guise of humanity and we
both know that and I won't argue that point with you,
as it will lead down the road to a variety of other
subjects that I am not debating in this post. Those
are for other threads. :)
The wall was not built to keep religion out of
government. It was built to keep government out of
religion. As T.J. said, no one has to answer to
government for their faith and as I'm sure he knew, to
expect people to drop their faith at the door of
Congress, is ridiculous at best and smacks of arrogance
on the part of any court who thinks that should be
done, or even can be done.
So we view that letter in two different ways. Was the
wall in Quebec (Old Quebec now) built to keep the
citizens in? Or was it built to keep the opposing army
out? Walls are not always for two way blockage. In
fact, they rarely are and T.J. specified that the wall
was so that religion would be a matter which lies
solely between man and his GOD and because he owes
account to none other for his faith or his worship and
that the legislative powers of the government reach
actions only, and not opinions.
I.e., you can take a man to trial for a ritual killing
of a human being, but you cannot claim that his
religious opinions are not welcome in government.
You should visit Old Quebec btw. That wall is really
cool. :)
>It is one of the historical peculiarities of our Constitution and the Bill
>of Rights that there is no record of most of the actual debates of the
>framers, in part because they intended to keep some of their deliberations
>secret.
Well, Masons do that. :)
>Therefore, in matters of the interpretation of those documents
>(*especially* by those who appeal to the "original intent"), the
>"non-official" writings by the participants, particularly Madison and, to a
>lesser extent, Jefferson and others, are often invoked.
But they are not legal documents and that was my point.
It is hypocrisy to discount the DoI's public statement
and then include the statements of private letters, or
even public books, which are not legal documents and
yet, make the "The DoI is not a legal document"
argument.
>Madison's _Memorial and Remonstrance_ (in opposition to renewal of a
>Virginia tax to support the then established church) had much more to do
>with the Supreme Court's interpretations of the Establishment clause than
>Jefferson's "Danbury letter", since it lead not only to defeat of the tax
>but to passage of Jefferson's 'Virginia Bill for Religious Liberty', which
>is considered the true archtype for the Establishment clause.
>
>Madison wrote in _Memorial and Remonstrance_:
>
> Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth,
> "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and
> the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason
> and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then
> of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of
> every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as
> these may dictate. ...
And yet, even though free exercise is supported here,
the government claims that is not so and orders all
symbols of religion dismantled. It is confirmed that
the government has no right to force anyone to stop
practicing their religion, yet that same government
thinks it can "force" people not to put up displays of
their religion.
The quote above says it is up to each person's
"conviction and conscience" and that it is my RIGHT to
EXERCISE my religion and yet, the government is telling
me that I can't do that by displaying the symbols of my
religion. That's hypocrisy and it is not what the
founding fathers intended, by any stretch of the
imagination.
> Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society
> at large, still less can it be subject to that of the
> Legislative Body.
See above. What government does now, is a
contradiction to what the documents and these quotes
stand for. Society (which is supposed to be the real
head of the government) cannot tell me that I cannot
exercise my religion, yet law suits are allowed and
won, that tell me not to express my faith in Christ at
my graduation. Nor can the legislative body tell me
that I can't and yet, laws are made that tell me that I
can't. Once again, hypocrisy.
> The latter are but the creatures and
> vicegerents of the former.
Now here's an interesting word. It simply means
someone appointed to act as a deputy. Note, that is
not a sheriff. :) The members of government are
deputies of the society, not sheriffs over them.
You see, with each quote you paste in, you support my
point, instead of yours.
> Their jurisdiction is both
> derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the
> co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with
> regard to the constituents.
See what I mean? Government is limited by the people.
And yet, there is one thing that even the people cannot
do and that is to make laws that violate the
Constitution and the Constitution says that government
cannot prohibit the free exercise of my religion and he
also stated that a couple of paragraphs ago.
> The preservation of a free
> Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds
> which separate each department of power be invariably
> maintained; but more especially that neither of them be
> suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the
> rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an
> encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive
> their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to
> it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an
> authority derived from them, and are slaves.
>
> <http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/remon.html>
This is a very important part of the quote. It says
simply that any government that tries to interfere with
that setup is not the government that was established,
but is a government of tyranny, run by tyrants and not
the people and that if the people allow it, then they
have made themselves slaves and the laws that are in
place are not by the people, nor by any authority
derived by them. And note that this all ties in to his
statement, which is in regard to religion, which is why
you quoted this quote (huh?) :). The fact is, that
this can easily be seen to mean that when the people
allow a government to infringe upon their right to
practice their religious freedom, especially by one
branch trying to overrule the other, the government is
now a tyranny and that the people shouldn't allow the
government to continue. So all you have done, is
support my position once again.
>While Madison did not use the phrase "separation of church and state" in
>_Memorial and Remonstrance_, there could hardly be a more ringing statement
>of the principle.
>
>And the 'Virginia Bill for Religious Liberty' stated:
>
> Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall
> be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship,
> place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced,
> restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods,
> nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious
> opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to
> profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in
> matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise
> diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
>
>
><http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/religion/va-religiousfreedom....>
How does that quote support your position? All he says
is that no one shall be compelled to any type of
religious worship. So what? I agree. Religious
freedom isn't about compelling anyone. If they are
compelled, then it isn't religious freedom, but rather,
religious compeldom. :)
>John Locke, often considered the philosophical godfather of the American
>Revolution said "I esteem it above all things necessary to distinguish
>exactly the business of civil government from that of religion, and to
>settle the just bounds that lie between the one and the other." (A Letter
>Concerning Toleration 20, in 6 Works of Locke. London 1823 & 1963 photo
>reprint.)
A very simple statement. One does not run the other.
I never said otherwise. My statement is simply that
while the Constitution keeps the government out of
religion, it does not keep religion out of government.
That is not to say that religion should run government,
with the state being subordinate to religion. It is
saying that religion is a chief part of our society and
it's expression is not limited to outside the court
house, or outside of Congress. No one can expect a
person to leave their convictions of faith at the door.
That isn't reasonable and in fact, it isn't possible
and anyone who attempts to, is a hypocrite who should
not hold office. For example, anyone running for
President who claims to be a Bible believing Christian
and yet, votes for abortion, is a hypocrite and is not
someone I would vote for, regardless of what else he
claims to stand for. I can't trust him and certainly
don't want him in office. That's not to say there
can't be minor points of disagreement.
Now before you get into the, "I have friends that are
Christians and they aren't against abortion" argument,
again, that is another thread. :) I was just giving an
example. I will say this however... Labeling oneself
as a Christian does not make you one. Going to church
does not make you a Christian, nor does reading the
Bible, nor does doing good deeds. What does make you a
Christian? Being a born again believer (John 3:3,16).
And I have never met a born again believer, a true,
Gospel preaching believer, who is for abortion.
With that said, you will probably make one statement in
response to that, but I will let it go with that.
>Finally, Jefferson was hardly the only one to use similar phrases. In
>1644, Roger Williams, Baptist leader and founder of Rhode Island, said that
>there must be a "hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the
>church and the wilderness of the world." And Madison himself said that the
>Constitution "[s]trongly guarded . . . the separation between Religion and
>Government . . . ." (Religious Liberty, p. 90. R. Alley ed. 1985).
>
>More can be found here: <http://review.law.mercer.edu/old/46304.htm>
See earlier comments.
Thanks for the post. I appreciate the tone with which
we are discussing this and again,I'm not trying to
attack you by calling you a hypocrite. I am trying to
open your eyes to the hypocrisy you are practicing with
regard to the DoI vs letters thing, so that you may see
it and correct it.
Pastor Dave
the Mt. Everest, Douglas Berry
<pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> pontificated:
And this is where we find the liberals jumping in,
looking foolish, making ridiculous requests.
>On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 01:52:39 +0000 (UTC), Pastor Dave
><newsgr...@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> drained his beer, leaned back
>in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
>
>>And yet, you just love the fact that the courts rule
>>for separation of church and state, which is not based
>>on the Constitution, but rather, a private letter that
>>Jefferson wrote, giving his own personal opinion.
>
>Find me a single court case that references Jefferson's personal
>letters as a legal precedent.
It is from his letter that they got the phrase, "wall
of separation between church and state".
Read son, read.
>What the courts use is the First Amendment, which has from the
>beginni9ng been used to insure a secular government.
That is not true at all. Nowhere does the Constitution
say anything about government being secular, nor does
it anywhere prohibit the free exercise of religion,
simply because it is a government building. It does
not allow however, for a church to run the government.
I'll agree with that.
Now if you're going to debate this, then you'll need to
do it from a position of knowledge, not ignorance and
with a kind and reasoned tone. I'm not going to get
into a flame war over this. All that tells me, is that
you have nothing to say which is based on fact, but
rather, emotion.
Douglas Berry
<newsgr...@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> drained his beer, leaned back
in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
>On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 04:52:45 +0000 (UTC), while scaling
>the Mt. Everest, Douglas Berry
><pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> pontificated:
>>Find me a single court case that references Jefferson's personal
>>letters as a legal precedent.
>
>It is from his letter that they got the phrase, "wall
>of separation between church and state".
>
>Read son, read.
I do. And I'm wondering what SCOTUS cases reference the Danbury
letter. Can you provide this information?
Of course, cases on religion tend to reference the First Amendment,
which prohibits the establishment of religion.
>>What the courts use is the First Amendment, which has from the
>>beginni9ng been used to insure a secular government.
>
>That is not true at all. Nowhere does the Constitution
>say anything about government being secular, nor does
>it anywhere prohibit the free exercise of religion,
>simply because it is a government building. It does
>not allow however, for a church to run the government.
>I'll agree with that.
Actually, the Constitution makes a couple of points about the secular
nature of our government.
First of all, we have the preamble: "We the People." Nothing about
deities here.
Secondly, we have Article VI, Clause 3:
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of
the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial
Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall
be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; **but
no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any
Office or public Trust under the United States.**
Finally, the first portion of the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
>Now if you're going to debate this, then you'll need to
>do it from a position of knowledge, not ignorance and
>with a kind and reasoned tone. I'm not going to get
>into a flame war over this. All that tells me, is that
>you have nothing to say which is based on fact, but
>rather, emotion.
I ask again: do you have any SCOTUS cases that use Jefferson's letters
as a basis for their rulings?
The keystone case in many people's opinions is Lemon v. Kurtzman.
Here's the Supreme Court opinion on it. You tell me what the Justices
based their decision on.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=403&invol=602
I'm more than willing to debate facts, but you'll have to bring some
to the table.
R. Baldwin
Jefferson also hated slavery, and his draft Declaration did include a clause
excoriating the King for allowing slavery.
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/rough.htm
It was struck by the convention during the editing, while Jefferson watched
aghast and Franklin consoled him.
In any case, though the draft Declaration included the complaint about
England's role in slavery, it would not have been the proper document for a
clause ending slavery. It was intended to lay forth the reasons for
Independence, not regulate the behavior of the States.
Jefferson wrote against slavery a number of times, but he also knew that the
fragile Union would not survive a debate on the subject so he did put much
effort into ending it.
>
> "The phrasing in the draft and the peculiar use of capitals and the
> spelling of words brand it to be the work of Thomas Paine. It was
> condensed, mutilated and then submitted to Congress by the chairman of
> the Committee, Thomas Jefferson. It is far easier to modify a draft on
> hand than to start with blank paper and, in twenty days, produce such
> a Declaration of Independence.
What research backs up this assertion? And why wouldn't a person of
Jefferson's obvious intellect be capable of drafting a one-page document in
20 days?
R. Baldwin
What makes you think Masonic influence in Government indicates a belief in a
personal God by the authors of the Declaration of Independence?
>
> The committee who was assigned to it, consisted of
> Benjamin Franklin, Robert Livingston, Thomas Jefferson,
> John Adams and Roger Sherman.
Sherman and Livingston don't appear to have much influenced the proceedings
in the committee.
The Unitarians claim Adams was one of their adherants:
http://www.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/johnadams.html
I fail to see how your own personal motives can in any way imply what the
motives of the founders were.
catshark
<newsgr...@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
[snip exception to the rule]
No, it is a court decision that is making a point, in an open and
forthright manner, about interpretation of a document where there is little
history as to what it meant to those who drafted it. Furthermore, it is an
example of the use of this method of interpretation long before most of the
present-day issues of church/state separation were even raised, showing
that its use is not tied to any particular current ideological position.
>First,
>you should admit your hypocrisy. I'm not trying to
>hurl insults at you. I am simply stating that your
>position is a hypocritical one.
As will be seen below, you haven't a clue about my position (except that I
know that your claim that seperation of church and state is "based" on
Jefferson's letter is bullhockey) and *your* screed is, therefore,
hypocrisy or worse.
>You cannot claim that
>I shouldn't use a founding document of this country to
>illustrate a legal and then claim that you can use
>private letters to do exactly that.
Who said that you shouldn't "use" a founding document of this country?
That *is*, in fact, the very issue: what that founding document *means*.
The court did not say "Jefferson's letter overrules the Establishment
clause", it said the letter helps us to understand what the Establishment
clause meant.
>
>Second, what you also fail to see, is that you are
>reading it the way you want it to read.
While *you*, of course, are not. Hah!
OTOH, I at least have some understanding of the history and jurispurdence
surrounding the Bill of Rights to guide me in my reading.
>I do not see
>T.J. as saying that God must be out of government. If
>that were accurate, then he wouldn't have penned what
>he did in the DoI, whether it was the Christian God he
>believed in or not. Note that it says that Congress
>cannot make any laws about the establishment of
>religion. As T.J. said, no one has to answer to
>government for their faith.
Now, what exact role does government have in religion if no one has to
answer to it in any way for their faith (or lack thereof)?
>
>As a side note, while some people read it thinking that
>the word "respecting" means that government cannot show
>any respect to religion, that is not what it means. If
>government was to have no respect for religion, the
>next statement would not be about the free exercise
>thereof. :) No, the word "respecting", means, "with
>regard to", i.e., "with respect to".
Strawman. I know of no serious proponent in the church/state debate who
holds any such position.
>
>Anyway, what this quote does NOT say, is that one
>cannot express their faith in matters of government.
>T.J. knew this, since even mentioning the Creator in
>the DoI was an expression of faith (Christian, Deist,
>or whatever).
Well, without knowing what you mean by "express their faith in matters of
government", there is little I can respond to. Politicians are as free to
express their faith (also under the 1st Amendment) as anyone else. They
are not *free* to apply their faith in executing their official duties.
There may, or may *not*, be a conflict between their faith and the
appropriate exercise of those duties. It depends on the circumstances of
each case.
>
>Also notice that it says that government cannot
>prohibit the free exercise of religion. So when you
>claim that the 10 Commandments can't hang in town, you
>are prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
First of all, *I* didn't claim that (it's way too simplistic a statement to
describe what is allowed and prohibited under the Establishment clause).
The Constitution only prohibits government action. The 10 Commandments can
be displayed by private persons. However, the government can't spend
*everyone's* tax dollars to *preferentially* display one religion's credos.
The issue of whether the government can display a number of diverse
religious opinions/credos/symbols is, naturally, a more complex problem
beyond the simplistic mouthings you've given so far.
>This is
>a government of the people, by the people and for the
>people and it is the peoples' town, not the
>governments.
And the minority who oppose such actions are *just* as much "the people"
and the Bill of Rights was written specifically to protect minority rights.
>And any government that says that a
>religious symbol must be taken down, is prohibiting the
>free exercise of religion in the peoples' town.
If they make a private person take down a religious symbol located on
private land, I (and the ACLU) would probably agree. Somehow I suspect
that is not the case you are talking about.
>
>Now before you argue about not all of the people
>wanting a particular symbol up, that is not the issue.
No, the issue is whether the goverment can use the taxes (everything the
government owns or does ultimately comes from taxes) of those people to
promote a religion they don't want to promote.
>Freedom of the EXERCISE (note that word) of religion is
>not accomplished by restricting all from exercising
>their freedom of religion. They can hang their symbol
>up too.
Within limits, that is true (such as the display of menorahs and creches
and other holiday symbols being allowed on public property). But government
can't pay for or make public property available to one and not the others.
>
>Also don't bother telling me about how one can go to
>their church and worship.
Are you saying that is unimportant?
>Then you would be claiming
>that they have religious freedom, as long as it's not
>in public and that's a ridiculous affront to the
>Constitution. The Constitution says that Congress
>can't make one single law that prohibits the free
>exercise of religion and yet, this would basically lock
>them behind closed doors, as if they were the
>Christians hiding in houses in the first century,
Except, of course, there are no soldiers ready to break down the doors and
introduce you to a pride of lions. You really like hysteria, don't you?
>or as
>if their religion was something to be ashamed of and
>that son, is NOT what America is about!
Now, if you think the present state of the court decisions on church/state
separation deny public exercise of religion, you are as ignorant of the
state of the case law as you are of the Constitution itself.
BTW, what part of my original post led you to believe I would take that
position?
>
>And don't think that's a stretch, because with the
>current tide, that's the way it's going. No one sees
>things when they happen in small increments, until one
>day they look back and say, "What happened? How'd we
>end up like this?". Students can't say "Jesus" in
>their graduation speeches, religious displays not
>allowed, etc., etc.. Yes, it's starting and along the
>way, folks like you will call folks like me nuts.
No, just highly simplistic. Want to trot out some of those examples and go
over them to see if you really understand the issues that were raised and
how they were dealt with by the courts?
>And
>one day, when the government is running your life for
>you, you'll look back and say, "What happened?".
And don't forget that is a two-way street. There are a lot of people who
have displayed a much greater grasp of the issues than you have that fear
that the tide is running in exactly the opposite direction. Not that I
necessarily agree with them either, but at least they have gotten past
inane platitudes.
>
>I can't remember the name of it, but recently (this
>year) there was small town that wanted to put up some
>Christmas stuff and was prohibited from doing so.
>According to the people of this small town, they all
>wanted it, but government said no.
The lawsuit filed December 2, 2004, claims that for the
past several years during the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah,
the Town of Bay Harbor Islands has adorned the lampposts
lining its main street with Jewish religious symbols of
Menorahs and Stars of David and has allowed a Jewish
synagogue to display its fourteen-foot Menorah on Causeway
Island, the most prominent public location at the entrance
of Town. Yet, every request by Sandra Snowden, a Christian
resident, to display Nativity scenes purchased with her own
money in a similar manner during the Christmas season, had
been denied by Town officials.
<http://www.thomasmore.org/news.html?NewsID=267>
Now here was a case where religion was apparently involved in government
(as you say it can be), just not in a way you liked.
The Federal court, under the Establishment clause, issued an injunction.
Do you approve of "separation of church and state" in this case?
>
>In another story, here locally, in town hall, a local
>government decided not to put up any Christmas
>decorations, because they "didn't want to spend the
>taxpayers money fighting law suits".
Sounds like responsible fiscal policy, assuming, as it appears to, that
they knew what was planned was at least questionable under the
Establishment clause. Maybe they should try spending more time planning a
proper exercise of government authority next time.
>
>In some towns (I really should have written down some
>names when I saw this stuff on the news), people aren't
>even allowed to have religious symbols (this was at
>Christmas time) on their front lawns and it is their
>property!
Yeah, and I can't just park junked cars on my front lawn either. There can
be valid regulations as to what people can do with their property insofar
as it impacts their neighbors. The devil in that case is doubtless in the
details. When you find out those details, we can look at it and see if you
had any more clue about it than the rest of what you've said.
>
>Sad, sad, sad.
Yeah, clueless bloviating based on nothing but half-digested factoids taken
from headlines can be pretty depressing.
>
>Now where government is supposed to step in here, is to
>defend the Constitution, which says that, "government
>shall make no law respecting the establishment of
>religion, or the *FREE* EXERCISE thereof and it should
>admonish that local government, or castrate it, if
>necessary. The government, although it has no place
>dictating which religion to practice, must defend it
>when someone's Constitutional rights are being
>assaulted.
Yup. That's *why* we have a separation of church and state.
>And it is a Constitutional right for me to
>EXERCISE freedom of religion in this country. Once
>again, we do not establish the free exercise of
>religion, by banning anything religious. The founding
>fathers would roll over in their graves, if they knew
>about this. You quote the founding fathers as if they
>were against this or something,
Oh, *do* tell me where I said or even *implied* that!
>but do you have any
>quotes that demonstrate their saying that the
>Constitution prohibits the free exercise of religion
>and that no religious symbols or speech are allowed in
>public places, or in government buildings? No, of
>course you don't, because that isn't how it was.
Not only didn't I take that position, but as far as I can see from when
this was cross-posted into t.o., nobody else did either. Who are you
arguing with?
What can't be done is favor one religion's symbol over another's (or, if
atheists were organized enough to come up with one, their symbol).
>So
>you'd better think about that, before you tell me what
>I can and cannot do regarding expressions of my faith.
Cripes. All this from pointing out that you don't have a clue about where
the Constitutional principle of separation of church and state came from?
Where did *I* try to tell you anything of the sort?
What the Establishment clause says is that, even if "I" was in the
majority, I couldn't use the government to do so either.
>And how long will it be, before this post I'm writing
>is considered a violation of the separation of church
>and state, because it's a public message? Think it
>can't happen? Think again. Religious speech is
>already being restricted and there is lobbying to
>restrict it further under the guise of humanity and we
>both know that and I won't argue that point with you,
>as it will lead down the road to a variety of other
>subjects that I am not debating in this post. Those
>are for other threads. :)
Then why did you raise this strawman?
>
>The wall was not built to keep religion out of
>government. It was built to keep government out of
>religion. As T.J. said, no one has to answer to
>government for their faith and as I'm sure he knew, to
>expect people to drop their faith at the door of
>Congress, is ridiculous at best and smacks of arrogance
>on the part of any court who thinks that should be
>done, or even can be done.
All we expect is that they realize that they can't use the power of
government to promote their own brand of religion, or lack thereof, or
force it on others against their will through taxation.
[snip some babling about old Quebec -- I've been there and it is "cool" but
irrelevant, or at least *more* irrelevant than the rest of your screed.]
>
>>It is one of the historical peculiarities of our Constitution and the Bill
>>of Rights that there is no record of most of the actual debates of the
>>framers, in part because they intended to keep some of their deliberations
>>secret.
>
>Well, Masons do that. :)
So do politicians who wanted (or at least hoped) to forestall public
questions about what they are doing until they had some consensus as to
what exactly that was going to be.
>
>
>>Therefore, in matters of the interpretation of those documents
>>(*especially* by those who appeal to the "original intent"), the
>>"non-official" writings by the participants, particularly Madison and, to a
>>lesser extent, Jefferson and others, are often invoked.
>
>But they are not legal documents and that was my point.
>It is hypocrisy to discount the DoI's public statement
>and then include the statements of private letters, or
>even public books, which are not legal documents and
>yet, make the "The DoI is not a legal document"
>argument.
Something *I* didn't do, BTW. Maybe you should check where those voices in
your head are coming from.
The difference (admittedly one of degree) is that the DoI was never
intended to be a document establishing any *form* of government (the
authors already *had* the Continental Congress), much less aimed at
addressing the meaning of the Constitution. Therefore, as something
written 20+ years before the Constitution, it is far less relevant to the
interpretation of it than a letter by a leading Founding Father and sitting
President after the fact. Anyway, *my* main argument would be that the
wording of the DoI no more imported religion into government than the
Constitution did.
Since that assertion is simply your misunderstanding of the state of the
law, there is not much else to say. "The" government is *not* telling you
that *you* can't display symbols of your religion. Attempts by some local
governments to limit such displays by individuals on private property have
generally been overturned by the courts. Attempts by the majority to use
government to, in effect, do the same thing by funding one religion's
symbols but not another's have also been overturned.
[snip more of the same]
>You see, with each quote you paste in, you support my
>point, instead of yours.
Only in the sense that you did not even bother to consider what my point
was and instead filled in with stuff dribbling out of your own head,
haven't bothered to understand the current state of the law before
pontificating on it and have argued both sides of the issue, as far as I
can tell from some of the incoherent ramblings here.
[...]
>> The preservation of a free
>> Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds
>> which separate each department of power be invariably
>> maintained; but more especially that neither of them be
>> suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the
>> rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an
>> encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive
>> their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to
>> it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an
>> authority derived from them, and are slaves.
>>
>> <http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/remon.html>
>
>This is a very important part of the quote. It says
>simply that any government that tries to interfere with
>that setup is not the government that was established,
>but is a government of tyranny, run by tyrants and not
>the people and that if the people allow it, then they
>have made themselves slaves and the laws that are in
>place are not by the people, nor by any authority
>derived by them. And note that this all ties in to his
>statement, which is in regard to religion, which is why
>you quoted this quote (huh?) :).
Um . . . yeah. I quoted it because it is an early statement of the
principles, later gathered under the rubric "separation of church and
state", that were then included in the Establishment clause. In short,
Jefferson's letter was *not* even the main source of the idea of
"separation of chuch and state".
>The fact is, that
>this can easily be seen to mean that when the people
>allow a government to infringe upon their right to
>practice their religious freedom, especially by one
>branch trying to overrule the other, the government is
>now a tyranny and that the people shouldn't allow the
>government to continue. So all you have done, is
>support my position once again.
I was not aware that the position you were advocating was the overthrow of
the American form of government.
The Founders, after having gone through the debacle of the Articles of
Confederation, knew that they had to address the very problem of
conflicting interpretations of the Constitution and couldn't leave it up to
vague platitudes like "what the people shouldn't allow". Thus, they
established a strong Constitution and a body, the Supreme Court, to
adjudicate what it means. They did not expect it to be perfect but they
hoped to head off tin-pot "revolutionaries" proclaiming themselves to be
"the people". That is something else to count toward your already vast
store of ignorance about the Constitution.
>
>
>>While Madison did not use the phrase "separation of church and state" in
>>_Memorial and Remonstrance_, there could hardly be a more ringing statement
>>of the principle.
>>
>>And the 'Virginia Bill for Religious Liberty' stated:
>>
>> Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall
>> be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship,
>> place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced,
>> restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods,
>> nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious
>> opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to
>> profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in
>> matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise
>> diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
>>
>>
>><http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/religion/va-religiousfreedom....>
>
>How does that quote support your position? All he says
>is that no one shall be compelled to any type of
>religious worship.
Or to *support* anyone else's. The issue was whether the state could tax
all the people for the support of one religion.
>So what? I agree. Religious
>freedom isn't about compelling anyone. If they are
>compelled, then it isn't religious freedom, but rather,
>religious compeldom. :)
>
>
>>John Locke, often considered the philosophical godfather of the American
>>Revolution said "I esteem it above all things necessary to distinguish
>>exactly the business of civil government from that of religion, and to
>>settle the just bounds that lie between the one and the other." (A Letter
>>Concerning Toleration 20, in 6 Works of Locke. London 1823 & 1963 photo
>>reprint.)
>
>A very simple statement. One does not run the other.
>I never said otherwise. My statement is simply that
>while the Constitution keeps the government out of
>religion, it does not keep religion out of government.
Which, for some simple people, might sound meaningful but actually says
nothing. *What* do you see religion *doing* in government?
>That is not to say that religion should run government,
>with the state being subordinate to religion. It is
>saying that religion is a chief part of our society and
>it's expression is not limited to outside the court
>house, or outside of Congress. No one can expect a
>person to leave their convictions of faith at the door.
>That isn't reasonable and in fact, it isn't possible
>and anyone who attempts to, is a hypocrite who should
>not hold office. For example, anyone running for
>President who claims to be a Bible believing Christian
>and yet, votes for abortion, is a hypocrite and is not
>someone I would vote for, regardless of what else he
>claims to stand for. I can't trust him and certainly
>don't want him in office. That's not to say there
>can't be minor points of disagreement.
And who said or implied that you can't make the candidate's religion or
lack thereof your criteria for voting for him/her? Or are you saying that
they can be excluded from government because *you* think their religious
beliefs are wrong, even if a majority of voters agree with the candidate?
>
>Now before you get into the, "I have friends that are
>Christians and they aren't against abortion" argument,
>again, that is another thread. :)
[...]
>With that said, you will probably make one statement in
>response to that, but I will let it go with that.
Nope, I'm just going to snip that strawman/irrelevancy.
>
>>Finally, Jefferson was hardly the only one to use similar phrases. In
>>1644, Roger Williams, Baptist leader and founder of Rhode Island, said that
>>there must be a "hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the
>>church and the wilderness of the world." And Madison himself said that the
>>Constitution "[s]trongly guarded . . . the separation between Religion and
>>Government . . . ." (Religious Liberty, p. 90. R. Alley ed. 1985).
>>
>>More can be found here: <http://review.law.mercer.edu/old/46304.htm>
>
>See earlier comments.
>
>Thanks for the post. I appreciate the tone with which
>we are discussing this and again,I'm not trying to
>attack you by calling you a hypocrite. I am trying to
>open your eyes to the hypocrisy you are practicing with
>regard to the DoI vs letters thing, so that you may see
>it and correct it.
Good. And I am not trying to attack you by calling you ignorant, I'm just
trying to encourage you to learn at least a little about the government of
the country you (presumably) live in.
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
If a nation expects to be both ignorant and free . . .
it expects what never was and never will be.
- Thomas Jefferson -
Pastor Dave
Well first of all, many of them did. :)
Secondly, Masonics claim to worship God, but allow for
different religious backgrounds.
>> The committee who was assigned to it, consisted of
>> Benjamin Franklin, Robert Livingston, Thomas Jefferson,
>> John Adams and Roger Sherman.
>
>Sherman and Livingston don't appear to have much influenced the proceedings
>in the committee.
Maybe, maybe not, but they were on the committee, so it
isn't logical to think that they had no input and they
did sign it.
People can claim whatever they want. What does that
have to do with the quotes I provided?
You are avoiding the quotes I provided. The fact is,
that I provided quotes of founding fathers who signed
the document and professed belief in a personal God and
quotes that professed belief in Jesus Christ as Lord
and Saviour, so to say that the founding fathers did
not believe in a personal God, is not reasonable. And
to say that they believed that a persons faith has no
part in their role in government, is also not
reasonable. You are acting like these men professed
belief in a personal God outside their jobs and then
became atheists when they entered the doors to meet for
Congress. That's ridiculous.
Pastor Dave
>>This is
>>a government of the people, by the people and for the
>>people and it is the peoples' town, not the
>>governments.
>
>And the minority who oppose such actions are *just* as much "the people"
And yet, you would applaud a decision that came about
by a majority of the people and tell us how our
democracy worked great, if it were a decision that you
agreed with.
>>And any government that says that a
>>religious symbol must be taken down, is prohibiting the
>>free exercise of religion in the peoples' town.
>
>If they make a private person take down a religious symbol located on
>private land, I (and the ACLU) would probably agree. Somehow I suspect
>that is not the case you are talking about.
Public land is the land of the public, not the
government. The government has seized the land of the
people and then told them what they can and cannot do
with it.
A government *OF* the people, *BY* the people and *FOR*
the people.
>>Freedom of the EXERCISE (note that word) of religion is
>>not accomplished by restricting all from exercising
>>their freedom of religion. They can hang their symbol
>>up too.
>
>Within limits, that is true (such as the display of menorahs and creches
>and other holiday symbols being allowed on public property). But government
>can't pay for or make public property available to one and not the others.
Now where did the founding fathers say that? You
pretend that recent decisions which happen to agree
with your opinion, are fact from day 1 of this country.
Sorry, that's not true. The Constitution addresses
*PUBLIC* free exercise of religion and says that
Congress can't make *ANY* laws regarding it.
Pastor Dave
If you're going to be dishonest and deny that they
interpreted the statement using a letter by Thomas
Jefferson, then we have nothing further to discuss.
Especially considering that they used the same wording
as his letter and it is well documented fact.
Pastor Dave
the Mt. Everest, Douglas Berry
<pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> pontificated:
>On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 15:53:48 +0000 (UTC), Pastor Dave
><newsgr...@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> drained his beer, leaned back
>in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
>
>>On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 04:52:45 +0000 (UTC), while scaling
>>the Mt. Everest, Douglas Berry
>><pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> pontificated:
>
>>>Find me a single court case that references Jefferson's personal
>>>letters as a legal precedent.
>>
>>It is from his letter that they got the phrase, "wall
>>of separation between church and state".
>>
>>Read son, read.
>
>I do. And I'm wondering what SCOTUS cases reference the Danbury
>letter. Can you provide this information?
If you read, then you should know.
>Of course, cases on religion tend to reference the First Amendment,
>which prohibits the establishment of religion.
No, it doesn't. It prohibits the government from
making any laws regarding the establishment of
religion. It is a protection for the people.
>>>What the courts use is the First Amendment, which has from the
>>>beginni9ng been used to insure a secular government.
>>
>>That is not true at all. Nowhere does the Constitution
>>say anything about government being secular, nor does
>>it anywhere prohibit the free exercise of religion,
>>simply because it is a government building. It does
>>not allow however, for a church to run the government.
>>I'll agree with that.
>
>Actually, the Constitution makes a couple of points about the secular
>nature of our government.
>
>First of all, we have the preamble: "We the People." Nothing about
>deities here.
"endowed by our Creator". Don't forget the DoI. Same
people.
>Secondly, we have Article VI, Clause 3:
>
>"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of
>the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial
>Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall
>be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; **but
>no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any
>Office or public Trust under the United States.**
I never said there should be a religious test. One can
be any religion and hold office.
>Finally, the first portion of the First Amendment:
>
>"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
>or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
And I bet you think that it says that Congress can't
make any laws that respect religion right?
Wrong. The First Amendment is not anti-religion. If
that were true, then the next part of the statement
would not be that government cannot prohibit the free
exercise of religion. That would be a contradiction of
stances.
It means simply, "in regard to", or, "regarding
religion".
>>Now if you're going to debate this, then you'll need to
>>do it from a position of knowledge, not ignorance and
>>with a kind and reasoned tone. I'm not going to get
>>into a flame war over this. All that tells me, is that
>>you have nothing to say which is based on fact, but
>>rather, emotion.
>
>I ask again: do you have any SCOTUS cases that use Jefferson's letters
>as a basis for their rulings?
>
>The keystone case in many people's opinions is Lemon v. Kurtzman.
>Here's the Supreme Court opinion on it. You tell me what the Justices
>based their decision on.
>
>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=403&invol=602
>
>I'm more than willing to debate facts, but you'll have to bring some
>to the table.
Sorry, that case is way too late. Try 1947, Everson v.
Board of Education. That's much earlier.
The reality is, that Thomas Jefferson didn't discuss a
wall that limited the publics expression of faith, but
rather, restricted the government from interfering in
the public's expression of faith.
Sharon
>
> You are avoiding the quotes I provided. The fact is,
> that I provided quotes of founding fathers who signed
> the document and professed belief in a personal God and
> quotes that professed belief in Jesus Christ as Lord
> and Saviour, so to say that the founding fathers did
> not believe in a personal God, is not reasonable. And
> to say that they believed that a persons faith has no
> part in their role in government, is also not
> reasonable. You are acting like these men professed
> belief in a personal God outside their jobs and then
> became atheists when they entered the doors to meet for
> Congress. That's ridiculous.
Personally I don't care what God or Gods politicians or founding fathers
believe or disbelieve in -- just don't force their personal spiritual views
on the population and above all, don't put it into the cirriculum of public
school (where it does not belong). It's a parents' right to teach their
children whatever spiritual belief(s) they may -- and the responsibility of
the school to teach science. Since some want to call atheism a "religion"
(it's the lack of a religion) but for the sake of argument -- call it a
religion! Please do, because:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Introduction to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment
... reconciled? Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Introduction. ...
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/estabinto.htm
Sharon
> belief in a personal God outside their jobs and then
> became atheists when they entered the doors to meet for
> Congress. That's ridiculous.
What you are saying is that *if* some of the Founding Fathers believed in
and worshipped the man on the moon as a god, then we must accept these men
as new our immortal popes (in exchange for the one sitting in the Vatican)
and implementing their beliefs as our new state religion -- implementing
into law that kids to eat green cheese every Friday for school lunch?
It does not matter what religion they believed in or what god they assumed
to exist.
It does not matter if they were atheist, christian, buddhist, or muslim.
[That is the whole point of the documents they penned.]
They had no intention of forcing their *personal religious beliefs* on any
other American.
The religious/spiritual views of the Founding Fathers is moot.
This is all that matters for insight into what they intended:
"[...]shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
The founding fathers were open minded, and the documents were intended to
free men to worship however they so chose to do -- without state powers
forcing the founding fathers' beliefs on you, me, or anyone.
Like some of the founding fathers, I too am a Deist, and I do not want
creation science in the schools because I know it is a biased myth. In my
opinion, it belongs in the library side by side with other ancient
mesopotamian mythology. Certainly not in our schools taught to
impressionable young minds as "science". If you want to teach kids that
nonsense, have some of your own children and teach it to them. But not my
kids. *If* I had that power to stamp out the ignorance of the Bible -- the
Bible itself -- I would be treading on the precious freedom and liberty
people *should have* as a free soul under *God* [whatever God that is, if
any.]
As a Deist, if I had the power to stamp out the Bible -- I would not do it,
I would not want to be blamed for forcing my belief system on anyone else.
(Insight into why the Founding Fathers did not implement another state
religion of their own). I believe in the freedom of religious expression.
But do I believe in the Bible, even remotely? No.
In 200 years from now, some creation scientist will come along and digging
up my post and saying "See! See! She believed in a god -- therefore that
means she supported the Bible and the Christian God." [ Not hardly. I may be
a deist, but I am not a complete fool once I saw what the evolutionists have
been saying -- and saw the mythology in that book that some call sacred. One
day, hopefully I'll have acquired half of the knowledge which Thomas
Jefferson had acquired about the Bible.] They had the sense to know it was a
ripe time the Bible should be removed out of government... they retired it
from politics. I speak as a Deist.
I've read many quotes from the founding fathers, and they were not so very
fond of the Bible. If Thomas Jefferson and the founding fathers had been
alive today, with access to the writings of Darwin -- and scientists who
followed in the wake of his discoveries, the evidence of evolution... how
would they have written those same documents? Would they have done more (?)
to emphasize "separation of church and state means keep creation science out
of the schools", since it is a personal religious belief system without
empirical evidence to support it.
catshark
<newsgr...@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
What parts of "a court decision that is making a point . . . about
interpretation of a document" and "use of this method of interpretation"
didn't you understand?
>then we have nothing further to discuss.
>Especially considering that they used the same wording
>as his letter and it is well documented fact.
Which the *court* pointed out it was doing. The *real* question is whether
Jefferson knew what he was talking about. The other quotes I gave showed
he did (as if we *needed* any proof that he knew more about it than *you*
do).
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one:
'O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.'
And God granted it.
- Voltaire -
catshark
<newsgr...@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 19:38:18 +0000 (UTC), while scaling
>the Mt. Everest, catshark <cats...@yahoo.com>
>pontificated:
Try a dictionary, "Pastor". I'm not the one trying to make up the rules as
he goes along. I've provided support in history and the law for what I've
said (and will provide much more if you want to stop dancing and discuss
specifics).
>>>This is
>>>a government of the people, by the people and for the
>>>people and it is the peoples' town, not the
>>>governments.
>>
>>And the minority who oppose such actions are *just* as much "the people"
>
>And yet, you would applaud a decision that came about
>by a majority of the people and tell us how our
>democracy worked great, if it were a decision that you
>agreed with.
And you reach this conclusion *how*? I will condemn *any* decision reached
by the majority that violates the Constitution. I will support some
majority decisions that don't violate the Constitution and oppose others,
just as every citizen has the right to do in a democracy. Or are only
those who agree with you afforded those rights?
>>>And any government that says that a
>>>religious symbol must be taken down, is prohibiting the
>>>free exercise of religion in the peoples' town.
>>
>>If they make a private person take down a religious symbol located on
>>private land, I (and the ACLU) would probably agree. Somehow I suspect
>>that is not the case you are talking about.
>
>Public land is the land of the public, not the
>government.
*All* the public, not just those in the majority on any one issue.
>The government has seized the land of the
>people and then told them what they can and cannot do
>with it.
No, "We the People" decided to have a government of laws, not just rule by
the mob. The majority can exert their will in most matters but on issues
we deem important rights, the minority is to be protected from oppression
by the majority. Don't *you* think freedom of religion is an important
right, Dave?
>
>A government *OF* the people, *BY* the people and *FOR*
>the people.
Again, *all* the people . . .
>
>
>>>Freedom of the EXERCISE (note that word) of religion is
>>>not accomplished by restricting all from exercising
>>>their freedom of religion. They can hang their symbol
>>>up too.
>>
>>Within limits, that is true (such as the display of menorahs and creches
>>and other holiday symbols being allowed on public property). But government
>>can't pay for or make public property available to one and not the others.
>
>Now where did the founding fathers say that?
They also didn't mention how to regulate airlines or railroads, how to
determine censorship issues in movies, or whether you have freedom of
speech over the usenet. Fortunately, the Founders of this country had far
more brains than you and were wise enough to lay out broad principles that
subsequent generations of Americans could apply to the circumstances they
found themselves in.
>You
>pretend that recent decisions which happen to agree
>with your opinion, are fact from day 1 of this country.
No, I *know* that, in accordance with the plan of the Founders, generations
of judges, the worst of whom knew and know far more than you do about the
Constitution and the issues involved, have worked hard to keep the system
working as planned and have, for the most part, succeeded.
>Sorry, that's not true. The Constitution addresses
>*PUBLIC* free exercise of religion and says that
>Congress can't make *ANY* laws regarding it.
Wrong, just on reading comprehension alone. Here: try actually *reading*
it:
<http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html>
Besides, what the heck do you think the Constitution *is*, other than the
*law* of the land? And what the heck do you think the government is doing
when it exercises its power to permit or deny the use of the land it holds,
except exercising some power granted it under law?
I knew you were ignorant of the American system of government but even I
did not comprehend the depths to which that ignorance ran.
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Only two things are infinite,
the universe and human stupidity,
and I'm not sure about the former.
- Albert Einstein -
catshark
<pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
[...]
>
>I ask again: do you have any SCOTUS cases that use Jefferson's letters
>as a basis for their rulings?
>
>The keystone case in many people's opinions is Lemon v. Kurtzman.
>Here's the Supreme Court opinion on it. You tell me what the Justices
>based their decision on.
>
>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=403&invol=602
To be fair to Dave (even if he won't return the compliment), SCOTUS did
*refer* to it at least a number of times. Two examples are:
_REYNOLDS v. UNITED STATES_
<http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/reynoldsvus.html>
_EVERSON v. BOARD OF EDUCATION_
<http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=330&invol=1#f22>
Of course, Dave won't be able to understand the difference between using
the letter to aid in *interpreting* the meaning of the Establishment clause
and "basing" their decision on it . . .
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
In the name of the bee
catshark
<res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
[...]
>> "This carries a clause to end slavery and this clause was omitted from
>> the Declaration. Had it been included, the Civil War, ninety years
>> later, would not have been fought. Why was this clause significant?
>> Because slavery appalled Paine but Jefferson, at his death, still
>> owned 200 slaves and any draft from him would not have included this
>> clause.
>
>Jefferson also hated slavery, and his draft Declaration did include a clause
>excoriating the King for allowing slavery.
>http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/rough.htm
>
>It was struck by the convention during the editing, while Jefferson watched
>aghast and Franklin consoled him.
>
>In any case, though the draft Declaration included the complaint about
>England's role in slavery, it would not have been the proper document for a
>clause ending slavery. It was intended to lay forth the reasons for
>Independence, not regulate the behavior of the States.
Perhaps more importantly, neither the Articles of Confederation nor the
Constitution would have been ratified if there had been a prohibition of
slavery in it. The only sense in which an early fight over slavery would
have prevented the Civil War (opps, the War Between the States) is that
there would have been no United States to fight a civil war in.
>
>Jefferson wrote against slavery a number of times, but he also knew that the
>fragile Union would not survive a debate on the subject so he did put much
>effort into ending it.
Um . . . "did *not* put much effort . . ."?
R. Baldwin
You might be interested to learn that, while Benjamin Franklin served on the
Committee of Secret Correspondence for the United States in France, he
joined the Masonic Lodge of the Nine Sisters where he had Voltaire confer a
blessing on his grandchild, Benny Bache. They also embraced at the French
Academy of Sciences. Shortly afterward, when Voltaire passed away, Franklin
attended a memorial service for him at the lodge, and honored him by laying
his Masonic crown at the foot of a painting of the philosopher. The king and
Church were outraged.
>
>>> The committee who was assigned to it, consisted of
>>> Benjamin Franklin, Robert Livingston, Thomas Jefferson,
>>> John Adams and Roger Sherman.
>>
>>Sherman and Livingston don't appear to have much influenced the
>>proceedings
>>in the committee.
>
> Maybe, maybe not, but they were on the committee, so it
> isn't logical to think that they had no input and they
> did sign it.
Where is the record of Sherman and Livingston impacting the Declaration of
Independence? The participants relate that Jefferson wrote the first draft
in private, and Franklin did the editing before it was brought to Congress.
>
>
>>> And don't forget, others still had to approve of it
>>> before signing it.
>>>
>>>
>>> BEN FRANKLIN:
>>>
>>> Although Ben Franklin did have a Christian upbringing,
>>> he doesn't appear to be a Christian. However, as far
>>> as an impersonal God, Ben was the one who made the
>>> motion to start each session of Congress with a prayer.
>>> Whatever he pictured God to be, it would not seem to be
>>> and impersonal God, since there would be no reason to
>>> pray to an impersonal God. It would be futile. It
>>> would be a waste of time.
>>>
Franklin wrote "When I think thus, I imagine it great Vanity in me to
suppose, that the Supremely Perfect, does in the least regard such an
inconsiderable Nothing as Man. More especially, since it is impossible for
me to have any positive clear Idea of that which is infinite and
incomprehensible, I cannot conceive otherwise, than that He, the Infinite
Father, expects or requires no Worship or Praise from us, but that he is
even INFINITELY ABOVE IT... I think it seems required of me, and my Duty, as
a Man, to pay Divine Regards to SOMETHING." -Articles of Belief and Acts of
Religion, 1728.
Available on-line at:
Pastor Dave
the Mt. Everest, "Sharon"
<mail-@-creation-vs-evolution.us> pontificated:
>
>"Pastor Dave" <newsgr...@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:n09us0hjkjt1t9es7...@4ax.com...
>>
>> You are avoiding the quotes I provided. The fact is,
>> that I provided quotes of founding fathers who signed
>> the document and professed belief in a personal God and
>> quotes that professed belief in Jesus Christ as Lord
>> and Saviour, so to say that the founding fathers did
>> not believe in a personal God, is not reasonable. And
>> to say that they believed that a persons faith has no
>> part in their role in government, is also not
>> reasonable. You are acting like these men professed
>> belief in a personal God outside their jobs and then
>> became atheists when they entered the doors to meet for
>> Congress. That's ridiculous.
>
>Personally I don't care what God or Gods politicians or founding fathers
>believe or disbelieve in -- just don't force their personal spiritual views
>on the population and above all,
That is what the Constitution does. It protects the
public from the government making laws regarding
religion. The amendment is there to protect the
publics religious freedom from the government, but it
also serves to keep government from forcing any one
religion on the people.
>don't put it into the cirriculum of public
>school (where it does not belong).
That is your opinion. Yet religions other than
Christianity are taught in schools. Only Christianity
is named in law suits.
>It's a parents' right to teach their
>children whatever spiritual belief(s) they may
No one said that the schools should force anyone to be
of any certain faith.
> -- and the responsibility of
>the school to teach science.
Wrong. Liberals are all about getting people to ask
the wrong questions. The question is not what should
be taught in public schools. The question is whether
or not there should be public schools sponsored by the
federal government. Read the 10th Amendment.
>"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
>prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
That is an amendment that guarantees the freedom of
religion. It ensures the public that the government
cannot make any laws in regard to religion, nor can it
prohibit the free exercise of religion. When you tell
a girl that she can't thank Jesus Christ in her
graduation speech, you are prohibiting the free
exercise of religion. This guarantee is not a
guarantee of freedom of expression in your home or
church only. It is a guarantee against the government
prohibiting free public expression of religion.
Pastor Dave
the Mt. Everest, "Sharon"
<mail-@-creation-vs-evolution.us> pontificated:
>"Pastor Dave" <newsgr...@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>> You are acting like these men professed
>> belief in a personal God outside their jobs and then
>> became atheists when they entered the doors to meet for
>> Congress. That's ridiculous.
>
>What you are saying is that *if* some of the Founding Fathers believed in
>and worshipped the man on the moon as a god, then we must accept these men
>as new our immortal popes (in exchange for the one sitting in the Vatican)
>and implementing their beliefs as our new state religion -- implementing
>into law that kids to eat green cheese every Friday for school lunch?
You're twisting my words, but that doesn't surprise me.
R. Baldwin
You might be interested to learn that, while Benjamin Franklin served on the
Committee of Secret Correspondence for the United States in France, he
joined the Masonic Lodge of the Nine Sisters where he had Voltaire confer a
blessing on his grandchild, Benny Bache. They also embraced at the French
Academy of Sciences. Shortly afterward, when Voltaire passed away, Franklin
attended a memorial service for him at the lodge, and honored him by laying
his Masonic crown at the foot of a painting of the philosopher. The king and
Church were outraged.
>
>>> The committee who was assigned to it, consisted of
>>> Benjamin Franklin, Robert Livingston, Thomas Jefferson,
>>> John Adams and Roger Sherman.
>>
>>Sherman and Livingston don't appear to have much influenced the
>>proceedings
>>in the committee.
>
> Maybe, maybe not, but they were on the committee, so it
> isn't logical to think that they had no input and they
> did sign it.
Where is the record of Sherman and Livingston impacting the Declaration of
Independence? The participants relate that Jefferson wrote the first draft
in private, and Franklin did the editing before it was brought to Congress.
>
>
>>> And don't forget, others still had to approve of it
>>> before signing it.
>>>
>>>
>>> BEN FRANKLIN:
>>>
>>> Although Ben Franklin did have a Christian upbringing,
>>> he doesn't appear to be a Christian. However, as far
>>> as an impersonal God, Ben was the one who made the
>>> motion to start each session of Congress with a prayer.
>>> Whatever he pictured God to be, it would not seem to be
>>> and impersonal God, since there would be no reason to
>>> pray to an impersonal God. It would be futile. It
>>> would be a waste of time.
>>>
Franklin wrote "When I think thus, I imagine it great Vanity in me to
suppose, that the Supremely Perfect, does in the least regard such an
inconsiderable Nothing as Man. More especially, since it is impossible for
me to have any positive clear Idea of that which is infinite and
incomprehensible, I cannot conceive otherwise, than that He, the Infinite
Father, expects or requires no Worship or Praise from us, but that he is
even INFINITELY ABOVE IT... I think it seems required of me, and my Duty, as
a Man, to pay Divine Regards to SOMETHING." -Articles of Belief and Acts of
Religion, 1728.
Available on-line at:
http://www.infomotions.com/etexts/literature/american/1700-1799/franklin-philadelphia-248.txt
(mind the wrap)
It is clear from this text that Franklin rejects the idea of a personal God.
This web site dedicated to the Presidents of the United States confirms what
the Unitarians claim:
http://www.potus.com/jadams.html
There are many John Adams quotes to counter your theme. For example:
"The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall
govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it
by fictitious miracles?" - Letter to Thomas Jefferson, 1815.
"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But
how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been
blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the
most bloody religion that ever existed?" - letter to Van der Kamp, 1816
Many more are available on an Atheist web site:
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/adams.htm
I did not claim a person's faith has no part in their role in Government.
History shows that it usually does. Nor did I argue that members of Congress
became atheists when they entered the doors. That would be a foolish thing
to say.
I pointed out that, of the three principal members of the committee
responsible for drafting the Declaration of Independence, two (Jefferson and
Franklin) are known to be deists who rejected the idea of a personal God,
and the third (Adams) was not particularly friendly to conventional
Christianity. I am not aware of any documented evidence that Sherman and
Livingston accomplished much of anything on the committee.
Jefferson wrote the draft. It was then edited, first by Adams, and second by
Franklin.
The draft containing the words "they are endowed by their creator with
inherent & inalienable rights" predates the final review by the committee
before its submission to Congress.
Accordingly, I don't see how the religious views of Sherman and Livingston
are relevant to the argument.
Pastor Dave
The other quotes are opinions of people. People can be
wrong.
Sharon
"Pastor Dave" <newsgr...@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>>"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
>>prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
>
> When you tell
> a girl that she can't thank Jesus Christ in her
> graduation speech, you are prohibiting the free
> exercise of religion.
Sounds at face value (if this is actually a true case) that somebody's
rights were infringed upon, yes... I agree with you, with the way you've
made it sound.
I'm not familiar with the exact case you speak of though.
I see no real harm if somebody chooses to thank God publicly or Jesus for
that matter) for passing their grade -- Jeff Gordon does it all the time --
no big thing. [Though it's really silly thinking an Almighty God spends his
time, making Jeff Gordon's tires go a little faster and better than his
fellow competitors -- whilst allowing Dale Earnhardt to crash and burn --
and get killed.]
However...
I am a little familiar with how the religious right does things.
Hypothetically speaking, that "one girl" might actually represent some 15,
25, 50 of the students (with the backing of church(es)) -- and have it
planned to do a big prayer right in the middle of the speech (by this young
woman) -- and others in the crowd, who might be Hindu, Muslim, Atheist,
including other Christian denominations which differ -- risk being
offended... left feeling pressured [in a public event sponsored by tax
dollars] to do something against their belief. This would not be the proper
place for it.
Or, a simple graduation speech -- turning into a lecture [preaching] on
religion. Think how you would feel for one moment, if you went to a public
event like your daughter's graduation -- and had to sit through five or ten
minutes of hearing Allah praised for a particular student's success.
Or, better -- if your daughter converted to Islam -- and she stood in front
of the audience praising her convictions to Allah -- and Christians in the
crowd thinking "Her family is Muslim?" Judging from your behavior on usenet,
I gather you would be embarrassed.
But really, what has that to do with graduation and beginning one's career
life? Really, it is out of place. I guess it's the student's way of saying
"Nanny nanny boo boo -- Jesus did it all for me -- and Allah did nothing for
you -- that's why you failed your grade -- that's why I got the scholarship
and you're going to work a dead end job and maybe lucky enough to make it
into the community college (with a government loan - if yer lucky). Some
things are just a matter of taste. Sally Jesse Raphael once said "Bad Taste
is a Sin."
Sharon
> On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 22:02:24 +0000 (UTC), while scaling
> the Mt. Everest, "Sharon"
> <mail-@-creation-vs-evolution.us> pontificated:
>
>
>>"Pastor Dave" <newsgr...@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>>> You are acting like these men professed
>>> belief in a personal God outside their jobs and then
>>> became atheists when they entered the doors to meet for
>>> Congress. That's ridiculous.
>>
>>What you are saying is that *if* some of the Founding Fathers believed in
>>and worshipped the man on the moon as a god, then we must accept these men
>>as new our immortal popes (in exchange for the one sitting in the Vatican)
>>and implementing their beliefs as our new state religion -- implementing
>>into law that kids to eat green cheese every Friday for school lunch?
>
> You're twisting my words, but that doesn't surprise me.
>
>
No, I am not twisting your words. What I am saying is their religious
beliefs are irrelevant.
Sharon
"Pastor Dave" <newsgr...@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message > The
> wrong.
>
Religion is a matter of opinion.
Daniel Kolle
<newsgr...@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> thought hard and said:
>On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 01:34:38 +0000 (UTC), while scaling
>the Mt. Everest, Daniel Kolle <DKo...@hotmail.com>
>pontificated:
>
>>On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 11:00:47 +0000 (UTC), Pastor Dave
>><newsgr...@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> thought hard and said:
>>
>>>On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 21:20:04 +0000 (UTC), while scaling
>>>the Mt. Everest, "Sharon"
>>><ma...@creation-vs-evolution.us> pontificated:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Founders James Madison, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington,
>>>> Benjamin Franklin, were Deists, believers in an impersonal Creator no
>>>> longer interacting with the universe. I.e., not Christian. So was
>>>> Abraham Lincoln.
>>>
>>>Impersonal? Is that why the Declaration of
>>>Independence claims that out rights are granted by our
>>>Creator?
>>
>>What the DoI do besides DECLARE INDEPENDENCE, Dave?
>
>And yet, you just love the fact that the courts rule
>for separation of church and state, which is not based
>on the Constitution, but rather, a private letter that
>Jefferson wrote, giving his own personal opinion.
>
>Hypocrite.
It is obvious, Dave, that you have not read the First Amendment, but
have no fear! I shall walk you through its amazing complexity.
*ahem*
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"
STOP RIGHT THERE. This says Congress (our lovely government) shall not
establish a religion.
"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
And neither shall Congress prohibit you from practicing your own
religion. Do note the word FREE, Dave.
The government is neutral toward religion, Dave.
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 16 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, Krzysztof Penderecki, and Geirr Tveitt are my Gods.
Head of EAC Denial Department and Madly Insane Scientist.
catshark
<newsgr...@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
[...]
>>>>>You have just proved my point for me. You are quoting
>>>>>a court decision, which is based on a letter.
>>>>
>>>>No, it is a court decision that is making a point, in an open and
>>>>forthright manner, about interpretation of a document where there is little
>>>>history as to what it meant to those who drafted it. Furthermore, it is an
>>>>example of the use of this method of interpretation long before most of the
>>>>present-day issues of church/state separation were even raised, showing
>>>>that its use is not tied to any particular current ideological position.
>>>
>>>If you're going to be dishonest and deny that they
>>>interpreted the statement using a letter by Thomas
>>>Jefferson,
>>
>>What parts of "a court decision that is making a point . . . about
>>interpretation of a document" and "use of this method of interpretation"
>>didn't you understand?
>>
>>>then we have nothing further to discuss.
>>>Especially considering that they used the same wording
>>>as his letter and it is well documented fact.
>>
>>Which the *court* pointed out it was doing. The *real* question is whether
>>Jefferson knew what he was talking about. The other quotes I gave showed
>>he did (as if we *needed* any proof that he knew more about it than *you*
>>do).
>
>The other quotes are opinions of people. People can be
>wrong.
Uh huh, the "opinions" of the very people who were most influential in
*writing* the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Not to mention the
"opinions" of judges who spent years studying what they did. Against that
you have only offered the opinion of someone completely ignorant of the
Constitution, its history or its interpretation: yours.
Let's see, which "opinion" should anyone accept as more likely correct?
Funny, I'm not having any difficulty with that decision.
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
In the name of the bee
Pastor Dave
>
>"Pastor Dave" <newsgr...@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>
>>>"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
>>>prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
>>
>> When you tell
>> a girl that she can't thank Jesus Christ in her
>> graduation speech, you are prohibiting the free
>> exercise of religion.
>
>Sounds at face value (if this is actually a true case) that somebody's
>rights were infringed upon, yes... I agree with you, with the way you've
>made it sound.
>
>I'm not familiar with the exact case you speak of though.
>
>However...
>
>I am a little familiar with how the religious right does things.
>Hypothetically speaking, that "one girl" might actually represent some 15,
>25, 50 of the students (with the backing of church(es)) -- and have it
>planned to do a big prayer right in the middle of the speech (by this young
>woman) -- and others in the crowd, who might be Hindu, Muslim, Atheist,
>including other Christian denominations which differ -- risk being
>offended... left feeling pressured [in a public event sponsored by tax
>dollars] to do something against their belief. This would not be the proper
>place for it.
The "proper place for it" is a matter of personal
opinion. The Constitution protects free speech and has
historically protected speech which included religious
tones. When you tell someone they can't say something,
because someone might be offended, that is a
restriction of speech.
>Or, a simple graduation speech -- turning into a lecture [preaching] on
>religion. Think how you would feel for one moment, if you went to a public
>event like your daughter's graduation -- and had to sit through five or ten
>minutes of hearing Allah praised for a particular student's success.
I wouldn't like it, but I would expect it if they are
devout Muslims.
>Or, better -- if your daughter converted to Islam -- and she stood in front
>of the audience praising her convictions to Allah -- and Christians in the
>crowd thinking "Her family is Muslim?" Judging from your behavior on usenet,
>I gather you would be embarrassed.
The First Amendment doesn't guarantee against
embarrassment.
>But really, what has that to do with graduation and beginning one's career
>life?
For a Christian, everything.
>Really, it is out of place.
That's your opinion.
Pastor Dave
>
>"Pastor Dave" <newsgr...@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:t1mus0llmsbun7qq0...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 22:02:24 +0000 (UTC), while scaling
>> the Mt. Everest, "Sharon"
>> <mail-@-creation-vs-evolution.us> pontificated:
>>
>>
>>>"Pastor Dave" <newsgr...@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>> You are acting like these men professed
>>>> belief in a personal God outside their jobs and then
>>>> became atheists when they entered the doors to meet for
>>>> Congress. That's ridiculous.
>>>
>>>What you are saying is that *if* some of the Founding Fathers believed in
>>>and worshipped the man on the moon as a god, then we must accept these men
>>>as new our immortal popes (in exchange for the one sitting in the Vatican)
>>>and implementing their beliefs as our new state religion -- implementing
>>>into law that kids to eat green cheese every Friday for school lunch?
>>
>> You're twisting my words, but that doesn't surprise me.
>>
>>
>
>No, I am not twisting your words. What I am saying is their religious
>beliefs are irrelevant.
You told me what I was saying and then misrepresented
what I was saying. That is word twisting.
Pastor Dave
In your responses, you kept talking about Ben Franklin,
for example. I did not argue the point about Ben
Franklin, I merely suggested a possibility and the
quotes I provided did not claim he believed in a
personal God.
However, you ignored the quotes provided from Sherman
and Adams that stated belief in a personal God and even
Jesus Christ as King. You may not like it, but they
did say it. You also forget that others signed it and
you would have to prove that every person that signed
it did not believe in a personal God. People don't
tend to sign such important documents,when they go
against their faith. Try to get a Muslim to sign
something that says that Allah had nothing to do with
mankind. Try to get me to sign something that says
that the Creator is not a personal God. It won't
happen, period. Yet you assumed that none of these
believers would have objected. That's not logical and
the quotes I provided demonstrate that.
"We recognize no Sovereign but God, and no King but
Jesus!" - John Adams
The fact is, that this was not set up as a secular
nation. If it were, then protection of free speech and
religion would not have been at the top of the list in
the Constitution and note that they're in the same
Amendment. That is not to say anyone sought to force
anyone to worship a certain way. It is however, a
protection for whomever wishes to worship freely.
What I don't understand, is how so many people claim
that this is a secular nation, when the first thing the
Constitution does is protect religious freedom. This
"wall of separation" was not designed to keep religion
out of government, but to keep the government out of
religion. That's not to say that any one church should
run the government, since that would be violating the
free practice of others. It is simply saying that the
government has no place telling people where and when
they can worship, nor does it have any place telling
people that they must check their faith at the door,
regardless of what door they may be walking through.
Pastor Dave
>On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 00:48:02 +0000 (UTC), Pastor Dave
Historically, the courts defended freedom in religious
speech and nowhere does the Constitution limit it.
Pastor Dave
>On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 20:49:55 +0000 (UTC), Pastor Dave
><newsgr...@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 19:38:18 +0000 (UTC), while scaling
>>the Mt. Everest, catshark <cats...@yahoo.com>
>>pontificated:
>
>Try a dictionary, "Pastor". I'm not the one trying to make up the rules as
>he goes along. I've provided support in history and the law for what I've
>said (and will provide much more if you want to stop dancing and discuss
>specifics).
I haven't made up any rules. I have quoted the
Constitution.
>>>>This is
>>>>a government of the people, by the people and for the
>>>>people and it is the peoples' town, not the
>>>>governments.
>>>
>>>And the minority who oppose such actions are *just* as much "the people"
>>
>>And yet, you would applaud a decision that came about
>>by a majority of the people and tell us how our
>>democracy worked great, if it were a decision that you
>>agreed with.
>
>And you reach this conclusion *how*? I will condemn *any* decision reached
>by the majority that violates the Constitution. I will support some
>majority decisions that don't violate the Constitution and oppose others,
>just as every citizen has the right to do in a democracy. Or are only
>those who agree with you afforded those rights?
It sounds like you have made yourself the judge of what
is Constitutional. Yet the Constitution does not place
limits on the free exercise of religion. If it did,
the word "free" would not have been in there. Free
means without hindrance.
>>>>And any government that says that a
>>>>religious symbol must be taken down, is prohibiting the
>>>>free exercise of religion in the peoples' town.
>>>
>>>If they make a private person take down a religious symbol located on
>>>private land, I (and the ACLU) would probably agree. Somehow I suspect
>>>that is not the case you are talking about.
>>
>>Public land is the land of the public, not the
>>government.
>
>*All* the public, not just those in the majority on any one issue.
>
>>The government has seized the land of the
>>people and then told them what they can and cannot do
>>with it.
>
>No, "We the People" decided to have a government of laws, not just rule by
>the mob.
You are deluding yourself. The government claims
ownership of these lands and calls it public land and
then limits what the public can do on it and then takes
other lands and calls them government land and tells
the public that they can't be on it at all.
>>A government *OF* the people, *BY* the people and *FOR*
>>the people.
>
>Again, *all* the people . . .
And yet, the minority are the ones happy. Go figure.
>>>>Freedom of the EXERCISE (note that word) of religion is
>>>>not accomplished by restricting all from exercising
>>>>their freedom of religion. They can hang their symbol
>>>>up too.
>>>
>>>Within limits, that is true (such as the display of menorahs and creches
>>>and other holiday symbols being allowed on public property). But government
>>>can't pay for or make public property available to one and not the others.
>>
>>Now where did the founding fathers say that?
>
>They also didn't mention how
So they didn't say it. Gotcha.
>>You
>>pretend that recent decisions which happen to agree
>>with your opinion, are fact from day 1 of this country.
>
>No, I *know* that, in accordance with the plan of the Founders, generations
>of judges, the worst of whom knew and know far more than you do about the
>Constitution and the issues involved, have worked hard to keep the system
>working as planned and have, for the most part, succeeded.
How is it working as planned, when what is happening
now didn't happen then? Things have changed and to
deny that, is to deny reality.
>>Sorry, that's not true. The Constitution addresses
>>*PUBLIC* free exercise of religion and says that
>>Congress can't make *ANY* laws regarding it.
>
>Wrong, just on reading comprehension alone. Here: try actually *reading*
>it:
>
><http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html>
"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."
Very first thing there. Now tell me where it says,
"only in private". And tell me where it denies
religion in "free speech". And tell me where it denies
religion in assembly, or in petitioning the government.
Yet people like you think that it has no place there.
That's your opinion, but it's not what the Constitution
says.
You probably think that the line means that government
cannot make any laws that respect religion. If that is
so, then I wouldn't be talking about reading
comprehension, if I were you. That isn't what it
means. If that were true, the next line would not be,
"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". That
wouldn't make any sense.
What it is saying is that government cannot make any
law "with regard to", or, "regarding" the establishment
of religion. In other words, government cannot limit
ones religious freedom and a person who wishes to speak
addressing a government meeting as a private citizen
cannot be told that he cannot mention God, nor does the
government have any place telling people that they
cannot display religious items, even if it is done so
publicly.
You are trying to claim that people do not have free
public exercise of religion and that is ridiculous.
The Constitution is primarily about what we, as a
public, have a right to. What you're saying, is like
saying that when it mentions free speech, it doesn't
mean free public speech, which is ridiculous. Yet you
do that with religious speech and guess what? It's in
the same Amendment. They are tied together. You
cannot have free speech by telling people that it can't
be religious in nature and you can't have the free
exercise of religion, by telling people that they can't
talk about it, because of where they're standing at the
moment.
>Besides, what the heck do you think the Constitution *is*, other than the
>*law* of the land? And what the heck do you think the government is doing
>when it exercises its power to permit or deny the use of the land it holds,
>except exercising some power granted it under law?
Note: Your own words... "land IT holds". Thank you
for proving my point. It is supposed to be PUBLIC
land, since we the people are sovereign over the
officials, who are deputies to us.
>I knew you were ignorant of the American system of government but even I
>did not comprehend the depths to which that ignorance ran.
I have said nothing that doesn't line up with the
Constitution.
Pastor Dave
>Of course, Dave won't be able to understand the difference between using
>the letter to aid in *interpreting* the meaning of the Establishment clause
>and "basing" their decision on it . . .
One can only wonder what that interpretation would be,
if they did not have the letter and never heard of it,
huh?
You also assume that they interpreted it correctly. I
would disagree.
The wall was not built to keep religion out of
government. It was built to keep government out of
religion. As T.J. said, no one has to answer to
government for their faith and as I'm sure he knew, to
expect people to drop their faith at the door of
Congress, is ridiculous at best and smacks of arrogance
on the part of any court who thinks that should be
done, or even can be done.
So we view that letter in two different ways. Was the
wall in Quebec (Old Quebec now) built to keep the
citizens in? Or was it built to keep the opposing army
out? Walls are not always for two way blockage. In
fact, they rarely are and in his letter, T.J. specified
that the wall was so that religion would be a matter
which lies solely between man and his GOD and because
he owes account to none other for his faith or his
worship and that the legislative powers of the
government reach actions only, and not opinions.
I.e., you can take a man to trial for a ritual killing
of a human being, but you cannot claim that his
religious opinions are not welcome in government.
Pastor Dave
First of all, let's get this straight. The First
Amendment of the Constitution offers protection for the
people from government, not the other way around and it
is with that in mind, that the First Amendment of the
Constitution must be read.
And no, it doesn't say that. It says that Congress
shall make no law respecting (or with respect to) an
establishment of religion. While I would agree that it
would prohibit Congress from establishing a religion,
it also prevents Congress from getting involved in the
establishment of religion by the public. As T.J. said,
no one has to answer to government for their faith and
the wall was so that religion would be a matter which
lies solely between man and his GOD and because he owes
account to none other for his faith or his worship and
that the legislative powers of the government reach
actions only, and not opinions.
You can dig up T.J. and argue with him if you wish, but
if we're going to discuss this "wall of separation",
then let's go by what T.J. actually said it meant.
>"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
>
>And neither shall Congress prohibit you from practicing your own
>religion. Do note the word FREE, Dave.
> The government is neutral toward religion, Dave.
I agree with free exercise of religion. And so you now
state that you agree that the word "free" means that it
can't be limited by government. Yet that's exactly
what's been happening. So when you say that Congress
cannot prohibit me, you also state that what has been
happening is wrong.
EjP
> Sharon: This email was passed along to me. Found it interesting
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kevin"
> Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 09:10:42 -0800
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> A letter I sent to a number of family members this morning, in response
> to the rant/letter from "Paul Harvey" below.
> ....
> Sincerely,
> Kevin
>
> -----Forwarded Message-----
> From: Kevin
> Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 08:48:18 -0800
>
> Dear Grandma, et. al,
>
> I seriously doubt Paul Harvey wrote this letter.
>
For the record, it was written by one Nick Gholson, a
columnist in Wichita Falls, Texas. Presumably people thought
it would circulate better if they falsely attributed it to
Paul Harvey.
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/g/gholson.htm
-E
> The writer asks, "What's the big deal" with an ideal of Christian
> religious purity?
>
> In February of 1844, the city of Philadelphia experienced bloody riots
> over which Bible to use to instruct school-children. The Catholics
> wanted the Douay version; the Protestants wanted King James. Over the
> years, ethnic and religious tensions mounted, and finally violence broke
> out. "[R]ampaging mobs of Roman Catholics and Protestants shot,
> clubbed, and otherwise attacked one another in what was known as the
> "Philadelphia Bible Riots."" "[S]even dead on site with two more to die
> later, and at least 20 wounded. Property damage totaled $250,000, big
> money in the 1840's."
> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/boston3.htm
>
> The battles over religion almost always occur between members of faith,
> not between the secular and the religious. Note the colonial practice
> by establishment Christians of hanging Quakers because they wanted to
> convert others to their faith within the commonwealth of Massachusetts.
> The fifth commandment, "Thou shalt not kill," was overlooked in favor of
> religious purity.
>
> I ask instead, "What's the alternative to an ideal of Christian
> religious purity?"
>
> Religious liberty. The acceptance of everyones' right to religious
> freedom of conscience.
>
> This is not Jerusalem, Baghdad, or Beijing. This is America. The
> writer below just doesn't get it.
>
> The writer argues for mob rule with respect to religion. I.e., our side
> is bigger than your side; our side has more churches; so suck it up and
> prepare to get your face shoved in the snow. No. That's wrong. Our
> Constitution explicitly protects the rights of the minority from the
> majority in just these types of situations.
>
> This is not the Soviet Union, where everyone has to atheistically pure.
> This is America. The writer below just doesn't get it.
>
> America was founded on Enlightenment principles of empathy, fairness,
> equality, and responsibility. Instead of a divine Christian king, our
> governing document, the Constitution, contains no reference to
> Christianity or God. It explicitly rejects religious tests for public
> office. The Bill of Rights' Establishment Clause forever separated
> religion from government.
>
> Founders James Madison, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington,
> Benjamin Franklin, were Deists, believers in an impersonal Creator no
> longer interacting with the universe. I.e., not Christian. So was
> Abraham Lincoln.
>
> Religious purity only interests those so insecure in their faith that
> they think 30-second football prayers and "Merry Christmas" instead of
> "Happy Holidays" really make a difference. As Benjamin Franklin put it:
>
> "When a Religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it
> does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so
> that its Professors are obliged to call for help of the Civil Power, it
> is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one." - Benjamin Franklin
> (from a letter to Richard Price, October 9, 1780;)
>
> Religious purity has never been the ideal of our government nor of our
> Constitution. Those on the radical religious right just want you to
> believe that.
>
> Happy Holidays, Merry Christmas, who cares. Show a little love and
> kindness to your fellow community members. I think that's what Jesus
> was getting at.
>
> Kevin
>
> On Fri, 2004-12-24 at 07:17, Millie wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- From: To:
> Cc: Sent: Friday, December 24, 2004 12:10 AM
>
> A LETTER FROM PAUL HARVEY
> Paul Harvey says: -"I don't believe in Santa Claus, but I'm not >> going
> to > sue
>
>>>>somebody for singing a Ho-Ho-Ho song in December. I don't agree
>>>
>>>with > Darwin,
>>>
>>>>but I didn't go out and hire a lawyer when my high school
>>>
>>>teacher taught > his
>>>
>>>>theory of evolution.
>>>>Life, liberty or your pursuit of happiness will not be endangered
>>>>because
>>>>someone says a 30-second prayer before a football game.
>>>>So what's the big deal? It's not like somebody is up there reading the
>>>>entire book of Acts. They're just talking to a God they believe in and
>>>>asking him to grant safety to the players on the field and the fans
>>>>going
>>>>home from the game.
>>>>"But it's a Christian prayer," some will argue. Yes, and this
>>>
>>>is the > United
>>>
>>>>States of America, a country founded on Christian principles.
>>>>According to
>>>>our very own phone book, Christian churches outnumber all
>>>
>>>others better > than
>>>
>>>>200-to-1. So what would you expect-somebody chanting Hare
>>>
>>>Krishna? If I > went
>>>
>>>>to a football game in Jerusalem, I would expect to hear a Jewish
>>>>prayer.
>>>>If I went to a soccer game in Baghdad, I would expect to hear a Muslim
>>>>prayer. If I went to a ping pong match in China, I would expect to
>>>>hear
>>>>someone pray to Buddha. And I wouldn't be offended. It wouldn't bother
>>>>me
>>>>one bit. When in Rome..
>>>>"But what about the atheists?" is another argument. What about
>>>
>>>them? > Nobody
>>>
>>>>is asking them to be baptized.. We're not going to pass the collection
>>>>plate. Just humor us for 30 seconds.. If that's asking too much, bring
>>>>a
>>>>Walkman or a pair of ear plugs. Go to the bathroom. Visit the
>>>>concession
>>>>stand. Call your lawyer! Unfortunately, one or two will make
>>>
>>>that call. > One
>>>
>>>>or two will tell thousands what they can and cannot do. I don't think
>>>>a
>>>>short prayer at a football game is going to shake the world's
>>>>foundations.
>>>>Christians are just sick and tired of turning the other cheek while
>>>>our
>>>>courts strip us of all our rights. Our parents and grandparents
>>>
>>>taught us > to
>>>
>>>>pray before eating, to pray before we go to sleep.
>>>>Our Bible tells us to pray without ceasing. Now a handful of people
>>>>and
>>>>their lawyers are telling us to cease praying. God, help us. And if
>>>>that
>>>>last sentence offends you, well..........just sue me.
>>>>The silent majority has been silent too long.. it's time we let
>>>
>>>that one > or
>>>
>>>>two who scream loud enough to be heard, that the vast majority don't
>>>>care
>>>>what they want.. it is time the majority rules! It's time we
>>>
>>>tell them, > you
>>>
>>>>don't have to pray.. you don't have to say the pledge of allegiance,
>>>>you
>>>>don't have to believe in God or attend services that honor Him.
>>>
>>>That is > your
>>>
>>>>right, and we will honor your right.. but by golly, you are no
>>>
>>>longer > going
>>>
>>>>to take our rights away . we are fighting back.. and we WILL WIN!
>>>>God bless us one and all, especially those who denounce Him... God
>>>>bless
>>>>America, despite all her faults, she is still the greatest nation of
>>>>all.....
>>>>God bless our service men who are fighting to protect our right
>>>
>>>to pray > and
>>>
>>>>worship God...
>>>>May 2005 be the year the silent majority is heard and we put
>>>
>>>God back as > the
>>>
>>>>foundation of our families and institutions.
>>>>Keep looking up..... In God WE Trust. If you agree with this,
>>>
>>>please > p.a.s.s
>>>
>>>>it on. If not, delete.
>
>
Sharon
> I wouldn't like it, but I would expect it if they are
> devout Muslims.
Great, and when an atheist student does their Valedictorian speech praising
their reasoning facilities and lack of belief in God, as the cause of their
academic success -- you'll be so tolerant.
Sharon
>>>>"Pastor Dave" <newsgr...@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>>> You are acting like these men professed
>>>>> belief in a personal God outside their jobs and then
>>>>> became atheists when they entered the doors to meet for
>>>>> Congress. That's ridiculous.
If they held a belief in God, did they mingle it in their professional
lives? Did they impose their beliefs on others? Is it possible to separate
one's religious belief from their political career?
Funny but my computer was produced by emachines -- and there's not a single
sign of what religion was of those who assembled it.
> You told me what I was saying and then misrepresented
> what I was saying. That is word twisting.
You are twisting the words of the Founding Fathers. PD might hold a
political position and mingling his religious beliefs with his political
work, but just because you do, does not mean I do, or that President Bush
should, or Bill Clinton would or our founding fathers. Some people actually
know how to separate their job from personal convictions. [Though Bush, I
don't know about sometimes.]
You made the assertion the founding fathers could not hold a personal
spiritual belief without it affecting their writings that helped to create
this country. You are saying an atheist is incapable of creating a fair
constitution? -- you are saying these men held beliefs in a god, therefore
it might as well be the Christian one -- and that they intended God be
forced on all Americans?
Sharon
> "Pastor Dave" <newsgr...@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> You are acting like these men professed
>>>>>> belief in a personal God outside their jobs and then
>>>>>> became atheists when they entered the doors to meet for
>>>>>> Congress. That's ridiculous.
> you are saying these men held beliefs in a god, therefore it might as well
> be the Christian one -- and that they intended God be forced on all
> Americans?
When I asked this question, what to expect except silence from Dave.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"
Except when they're atheist or agnostic or believe evolution and reject a
creator, huh?
It's people like you Dave, that the need existed for such documents as the
Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights.............
Notice they wrote it they believe all men are created equal by "their"
creator -- in other words an evolutionist may be an atheist pantheist and
his creator is the stuff the cosmos is made of, [...] and have inalienable
rights -- it does not say that they must necessarily believe in a creator to
have those rights.
Christopher A. Lee
There was one in Rhinebeck NY 3 years ago which didn't mnention God
and called for tolerance especially from religious extremists.
The school apologised to the community.
It's pathetic really.
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=2006633&BRD=1769&PAG=461&dept_id=74969&rfi=6
Christopher A. Lee
Exactly. This atheist was created by two other atheists a year after
they got married just after WW1.
I don't think the framers allowed for the sociopathy, ignorance,
illiteracy or stupidity of the citizenry.
If you read Lincoln's speeches, he was addressing farmers etc, not the
educated classes. Yet they understood the issues and arguments far
better than the brainewashed ignorant of today
Sharon
"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:62m0t0pvrplj3cn9e...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 17:00:47 +0000 (UTC), "Sharon"
> <mail-@-creation-vs-evolution.us> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Pastor Dave" <newsgr...@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>>news:op70t05mklhf9t1v7...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> I wouldn't like it, but I would expect it if they are
>>> devout Muslims.
Great example.
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=2006633&BRD=1769&PAG=461&dept_id=74969&rfi=6
"Board of Education President Frank Venezia said that some of the content in
Smyth's speech "denigrated" religious groups. Venezia also asked the board
if students have the right or the privilege to speak at graduation."
So Dave, are you going to get up in arms to protect this young man's freedom
of speech and expression of his spiritual beliefs? So that others like him
will be free to express their beliefs openly and boldly? (Would you offer
the same of yourself as a Christian, as the Deist founding fathers [who
rejected the Bible] did their utmost to protect your freedom of Speech?).
"He has a right to advocate what he wants," said Weichsel. "The issue was
who he was denigrating."
Didn't Dave say something about we, as Americans, are not protected from
being offended?
"ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is
based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone, not just you! You may
leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc., "
http://www.rushonline.com/halloffame/billrights.htm
So let the Valedictorian speak!
R. Baldwin
> On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 00:30:37 +0000 (UTC), while scaling
> the Mt. Everest, "R. Baldwin"
> <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> pontificated:
>
>>"Pastor Dave" <newsgr...@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>>news:n09us0hjkjt1t9es7...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 18:41:49 +0000 (UTC), while scaling
>>> the Mt. Everest, "R. Baldwin"
>>> <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> pontificated:
[snip for brevity]
This is inane. If a document does not affirm a belief in a personal God,
that does not mean it affirms the converse. Further, there are people who
believe God has something to do with mankind but does not have a personal
relationship with individuals (Franklin and Jefferson both held this view).
Jefferson drafted a document that did not affiirm a belief in a personal
God, but would not offend the sensibilities of those who did.
I did not ignore the quote from Adams, I provided two counter examples and a
link to more:
"The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall
govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it
by fictitious miracles?" - Letter to Thomas Jefferson, 1815.
"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But
how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been
blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the
most bloody religion that ever existed?" - letter to Van der Kamp, 1816
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/adams.htm
I also provided additional information confirming that Adams was a
Unitarian, as the UU church claims.
I told you why I ignored the quotes of Sherman and Livingston. I do not see
how they matter in this regard.
By the way, "Allah" is simply an Arabic word for God.
>
> "We recognize no Sovereign but God, and no King but
> Jesus!" - John Adams
Given the context (Adams denying the sovereignty of King George III over the
Americans), it is probable that this was a figure of speech Adams found
useful. I suspect he made the statement at a time prior to Massachussetts
ending its establishment of religion, in which case for Adams to deny the
divinity of Christ would have disqualified him for office.
>
> The fact is, that this was not set up as a secular
> nation. If it were, then protection of free speech and
> religion would not have been at the top of the list in
> the Constitution and note that they're in the same
> Amendment. That is not to say anyone sought to force
> anyone to worship a certain way. It is however, a
> protection for whomever wishes to worship freely.
>
> What I don't understand, is how so many people claim
> that this is a secular nation, when the first thing the
> Constitution does is protect religious freedom. This
> "wall of separation" was not designed to keep religion
> out of government, but to keep the government out of
> religion. That's not to say that any one church should
> run the government, since that would be violating the
> free practice of others. It is simply saying that the
> government has no place telling people where and when
> they can worship, nor does it have any place telling
> people that they must check their faith at the door,
> regardless of what door they may be walking through.
At first, the United States was not set up as a nation at all. It was set up
as thirteen independent countries in an alliance against Great Britain.
Under the Articles of Confederation they yielded some of their separate
rights as countries to the Continental alliance. It took years for the
United States to evolve into a nation, and years for the concepts
surrounding freedom of religion to become clearly established.
If you read what the founders wrote, besides just the Constitution and the
Declaration of Independence, you'll find that they were trying to avoid the
abuses common in Europe- Government should not start wars using religion,
compel people to attend worship services, compel people to make a statement
of faith, require office holders to make a religious statement as a
qualification for office, or require people to fund the salaries of clergy,
construction of houses of worship, or other religious endeavors with their
tax monies.
The Bill of Rights precluded the United States from establishing religion.
That was a significant change from the convention among European nations,
all of which had established religious, with which they committed all of the
abuses listed above.
There were at least four reasons for this: (a) the Union was still weak,
threatened by inter-State rivalries, and many public figures were not ready
to give up their State's right to be an independent nation in favor of a
vast Continental one; (b) of the States with established religions (several
did not), they heralded from conflicting sects which had warred in Europe
within recent history, and an established religion for the United States
would be impractical; (c) many of the founders wanted to end established
religion (meaning officially sanctioned Government religion) entirely
because of all the problems they saw with it; and (d) a few of the founders
held a particularly dim view of organized religion and desired to end what
they saw as superstitious influence preventing free enquiry.
The outcome was a compromise arising from these different views.
You suggest Freedom of Religion would be at the front of the Constitution if
the United States were a secular nation. This ignores history. The reason
the Bill of Rights was not included in the original Constitution was that
many people saw it as unneccesary. The argument was that, if the
Constitution specifically enumerated the rights of Government, anything not
spelled out therein remained the rights of the People or the States. During
the first session of Congress, the Bill of Rights advocates won the
argument, saying these rights were so important that they must be written
out-- and Freedom of Religion is indeed at the very top of the Bill of
Rights, in the First Amendment.
I would further point out that there is a significant difference between a
secular Government and a secular nation. The United States has a secular
Government. It is not a secular nation.
I am not aware of any office in this land that requires an office holder to
check their faith at the door. There are times when it is not appropriate
for office holders to express their faith, such as making a speech to a
captive audience of students. That would infringe on the students' free
exercise of religion.
Office holders take on an obligation when they receive the reigns of power,
not to abuse their office in the practice of their own personal faith.
Pastor Dave
>Didn't Dave say something about we, as Americans, are not protected from
>being offended?
>
>"ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is
>based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone, not just you! You may
>leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc., "
>http://www.rushonline.com/halloffame/billrights.htm
>
>So let the Valedictorian speak!
And yet, you want to limit religious speech to
non-public places. Hypocrite.
Pastor Dave
the Mt. Everest, "Christopher A. Lee"
<ca...@optonline.net> pontificated:
Isn't it interesting that liberals cry out against what
they label as hate speech by religious organizations
and yet, don't see denigrating religious groups as hate
speech. That's called "hypocrisy".
Pastor Dave
>
I thought you said atheism isn't a religion? If that's
true, then why do you note what an atheist would say in
a discussion of religious expression?
Pastor Dave
>"Pastor Dave" <newsgr...@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:d280t0tcl2f33fnns...@4ax.com...
>>>>>"Pastor Dave" <newsgr...@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> You are acting like these men professed
>>>>>> belief in a personal God outside their jobs and then
>>>>>> became atheists when they entered the doors to meet for
>>>>>> Congress. That's ridiculous.
>
>If they held a belief in God, did they mingle it in their professional
>lives?
Did you read what I said?
>Did they impose their beliefs on others?
Did I say that? No.
>Is it possible to separate one's religious belief from their political career?
Not if they are sincerely held beliefs, no.
>Funny but my computer was produced by emachines -- and there's not a single
>sign of what religion was of those who assembled it.
Which has nothing to do with government. You are
sinking into your psychotic behaviour again. I knew it
would only be a matter of time before you revealed your
psychosis again.
>> You told me what I was saying and then misrepresented
>> what I was saying. That is word twisting.
>
>You are twisting the words of the Founding Fathers.
No, I am not, nor did you provide evidence that I am.
You merely claimed that I did.
>You made the assertion the founding fathers could not hold a personal
>spiritual belief without it affecting their writings that helped to create
>this country.
Does it say, "Creator" in the DoI or not?
Is freedom of religious expression the first thing
mentioned in the Constitution or not?
>You are saying an atheist is incapable of creating a fair
>constitution?
An atheist would not have written the First Amendment
the way it is and we both know that. An true atheist
would view religion as being against humanity and would
have sought no protections for it.
>-- you are saying these men held beliefs in a god, therefore
>it might as well be the Christian one
I said that there were Christians involved and that the
first thing the Constitution does, is to protect
religion from the government.
>-- and that they intended God be forced on all Americans?
Thank for again proving that you twist my words. I
have already corrected you on this and yet you keep
claiming that I am saying it and the question mark
doesn't hide that fact. I never said that Americans
can, or should be forced to believe in God.
Pastor Dave
the Mt. Everest, "R. Baldwin"
<res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> pontificated:
>This is inane. If a document does not affirm a belief in a personal God,
>that does not mean it affirms the converse.
And if a document doesn't say either way, that does not
mean that it is saying that there is no personal God,
yet you assume that position.
Fact: More than one person who signed it did believe in
a personal God.
Fact: The first thing the Constitution does is protect
religious freedom from government intrusion.
Fact: Thomas Jefferson himself affirmed that a persons
faith is between him and his God and that he does not
have to answer to government, nor does government have
any right to limit his free exercise of religion.
It boils down to these three facts and no one can deny
that they are facts. On this basis, no one can say
that this nation was founded as a secular nation. That
is a foolish position, considering the above three
facts.
Sharon
> On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 18:30:58 +0000 (UTC), while scaling
> the Mt. Everest, "Christopher A. Lee"
> <ca...@optonline.net> pontificated:
>>
>
> Isn't it interesting that liberals cry out against what
> they label as hate speech by religious organizations
> and yet, don't see denigrating religious groups as hate
> speech. That's called "hypocrisy".
>
Allahu akbar! God is the wind in PD's hot air.
Sharon
>>> I wouldn't like it, but I would expect it if they are
>>> devout Muslims.
You expect *religion* as part of speech at graduation? Personally, I do not.
>>
SHARON: "Great, and when an atheist student does their Valedictorian speech
praising
their reasoning facilities and lack of belief in God, as the cause of their
academic success -- you'll be so tolerant."
Where did I include the word "religion" in my quote above?
If you feel Christians have the right to speak to an assembly on their
opinion about what caused their success and to praise it openly -- then why
shouldn't an atheist be given the same opportunity?
R. Baldwin
> On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 18:30:58 +0000 (UTC), while scaling
> the Mt. Everest, "Christopher A. Lee"
> <ca...@optonline.net> pontificated:
>
>>On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 17:00:47 +0000 (UTC), "Sharon"
>><mail-@-creation-vs-evolution.us> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Pastor Dave" <newsgr...@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>news:op70t05mklhf9t1v7...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>> I wouldn't like it, but I would expect it if they are
>>>> devout Muslims.
>>>
>>>Great, and when an atheist student does their Valedictorian speech
>>>praising
>>>their reasoning facilities and lack of belief in God, as the cause of
>>>their
>>>academic success -- you'll be so tolerant.
>>
>>There was one in Rhinebeck NY 3 years ago which didn't mnention God
>>and called for tolerance especially from religious extremists.
>>
>>The school apologised to the community.
>>
>>It's pathetic really.
>>
>>http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=2006633&BRD=1769&PAG=461&dept_id=74969&rfi=6
>
> Isn't it interesting that liberals cry out against what
> they label as hate speech by religious organizations
> and yet, don't see denigrating religious groups as hate
> speech. That's called "hypocrisy".
>
What do you call the careless flinging of the word "liberal" as an epithet
by someone who purports to practice Christianity?
R. Baldwin
> On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 18:56:47 +0000 (UTC), while scaling
> the Mt. Everest, "R. Baldwin"
> <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> pontificated:
>
>
>>This is inane. If a document does not affirm a belief in a personal God,
>>that does not mean it affirms the converse.
>
> And if a document doesn't say either way, that does not
> mean that it is saying that there is no personal God,
> yet you assume that position.
I never argued that the Declaration of Independence states there is no
personal God. It would have stood no chance of adoption had it done so. I
argued that its word choice reflects the fact that its principal author and
at least one of the principal editors did not hold a belief in a personal
God. The Declaration of Independence is consistent with both belief and
non-belief in a personal God.
>
> Fact: More than one person who signed it did believe in
> a personal God.
No quarrel here.
>
> Fact: The first thing the Constitution does is protect
> religious freedom from government intrusion.
Actually, no. That would be the Bill of Rights.
>
> Fact: Thomas Jefferson himself affirmed that a persons
> faith is between him and his God and that he does not
> have to answer to government, nor does government have
> any right to limit his free exercise of religion.
Yes.
>
> It boils down to these three facts and no one can deny
> that they are facts. On this basis, no one can say
> that this nation was founded as a secular nation. That
> is a foolish position, considering the above three
> facts.
>
This is a non-sequitur. Your three facts (one of which is wrong) do not
necessarily lead to a conclusion that the United States is a non-secular
nation. There are now secular nations in Europe that allow religious freedom
which the majority opt not to practice, even as the majority of U.S.
citizens opt to practice some form of faith.
On the other hand, if you actually read what I wrote, you'll see that I
pointed out the United States has a secular _Government_, meaning it has no
establishment of religion, as opposed to being a secular _nation_, which
public opinion polls show it is clearly not.
Sharon
Wait, that's what PD wants, because the questions have grown to stiff for
him.news:18p0t09dor3c8fhv5...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 17:08:19 +0000 (UTC), while scaling
> the Mt. Everest, "Sharon"
> <mail-@-creation-vs-evolution.us> pontificated:
>
>
>
>>"Pastor Dave" <newsgr...@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>>news:d280t0tcl2f33fnns...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>"Pastor Dave" <newsgr...@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> You are acting like these men professed
>>>>>>> belief in a personal God outside their jobs and then
>>>>>>> became atheists when they entered the doors to meet for
>>>>>>> Congress. That's ridiculous.
>>
>>If they held a belief in God, did they mingle it in their professional
>>lives?
>
> Did you read what I said?
I read exactly what you said. You are a silly fundamentalist, who assumed
that because these men believed in a god they were evangelists trying to
brainwash everyone else to their world view.
That's a fundamentalist problem, not typical of deists.
Here's your quote again Dave:
"You are acting like these men professed belief in a personal God outside
their jobs and then became atheists when they entered the doors to meet for
Congress. That's ridiculous."
Sharon: How would they behave in Congress? were they confusing congress with
church?
>
>
>>Did they impose their beliefs on others?
>
> Did I say that? No.
Actions speak louder than words in your case.
>
>
>>Is it possible to separate one's religious belief from their political
>>career?
>
> Not if they are sincerely held beliefs, no.
You mean dangerous fundamentalist beliefs -- the kind which believe god
wills it and blowing up the infidel. "Kill em all, and let God sort them
out" Or, when knowing it's not an acceptable policy to hang the Ten
Commandments in a court room, "Damn the North! The South is gonna rise
again. Praise the Lard and pass the nails." -- right PD. Gotcha. Never
enough roast beef for Gawd in the Old Testament, and still not enough
bloodshed for the Lard after the New.
>
>
>>Funny but my computer was produced by emachines -- and there's not a
>>single
>>sign of what religion was of those who assembled it.
>
> Which has nothing to do with government. You are
> sinking into your psychotic behaviour again. I knew it
> would only be a matter of time before you revealed your
> psychosis again.
You missed the point entirely PD. Just because the Founding Fathers held
deist beliefs, they were capable of writing documents which reflected a fair
view for all people -- Hindu, Muslim, Atheist, Christian, Buddhist, Jew --
the problem is, in your deluded perception you cannot conceive a world which
allows for anyone else to have rights but you.
You are incapable of writing a document which would protect the rights of
*all people.*
Just because you are impaired by your narcissist religious beliefs -- does
not mean others are.
It is possible, for men to sit down and pen documents, create appliances,
write movie scripts, produce music -- without their product being remotely
tainted by their religious beliefs.
If the makers of my computer, could produce this machine without it being
marked with any insight into their religious beliefs -- could it be possible
for the Founding Fathers to hold a spiritual belief and yet keep a fair and
open mind -- creating a document which would protect the rights of atheists
(though they themselves, the founding fathers, are perhaps not atheist
themselves.) Can it be done?
Or when you take a shit -- do you feel compelled to wipe in the shape of a
cross?
>
>
>>> You told me what I was saying and then misrepresented
>>> what I was saying. That is word twisting.
>>
>>You are twisting the words of the Founding Fathers.
>
> No, I am not, nor did you provide evidence that I am.
> You merely claimed that I did.
You're sounding like a broken record Dave. You're the person who seems to
feel the Founding Fathers based the documents on their spiritual beliefs vs.
common sense.
>
Sharon
"You are acting like these men professed belief in a personal God outside
their jobs and then became atheists when they entered the doors to meet for
Congress. That's ridiculous."
Are you saying it is impossible to separate religious beliefs from one's
work or position of power?
When they entered Congress they were working in the interest of "The People"
not "The Church".
You're ridiculous to assume there is an inability to think and reason
outside of, and beyond spiritual beliefs.
It is possible for a Deist, Agnostic or Atheist to leave their "world view"
on spirituality outside the doors of Congress, yes sir, it is possible to
remain fair with consideration to rights for *all people* without religion.
A man can do it... perhaps however, in difference to Christianity, maybe it
does take a Deist, Agnostic or Atheist to be a fair judge and preserve the
rights of "The People" over the whims of the church. You can't think outside
that book, you've demonstrated that with your comment
">Is it possible to separate one's religious belief from their political
career?
Not if they are sincerely held beliefs, no."
You've proven my point. You do not belong in power over a school board, a
seat in the city counsel, not in state nor federal government. If the
Supreme Court ordered you "Take that Ten Commandment Plaque off your
walls"... you'd defy the law because you cannot separate your religious
beliefs from your duty to serve "The public"... despite lawyers telling you
your behavior is unlawful and unconstitutional -- offending people of other
beliefs -- you wouldn't care because you are that pig headed and stubborn.
Jesus instructed "Render to Ceasar what is Ceasar's" -- and a good Christian
would simply remove the plaque off the wall if the government said to do so.
But in your reasoning, God made it all, so God owns the government buildings
and the property they sit on, and so it's your obligation to worship him and
force others to do the same.
The Founding Fathers had to draw up the documents to keep people like you
from getting out of control.
Sharon
>>This is inane. If a document does not affirm a belief in a personal God,
>>that does not mean it affirms the converse.
>
> And if a document doesn't say either way, that does not
> mean that it is saying that there is no personal God,
> yet you assume that position.
>
> Fact: More than one person who signed it did believe in
> a personal God.
So what?
I dont care if every single one of them was an atheist or a Buddhist --
those documents do not give Christianity [or Creation Science] superior to
any other religion, including an atheist world view [lack of religion].
Emphasis on the quote "unalienable rights to people":
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"
It says nothing about unalienable rights of Christianity -- nor that
Christianity was created superior to other religions.
Sharon
SHARON: The religious beliefs of the Founding Fathers is completely
unalienably irrelevant.
SHOW US where the Founding Fathers wasted their time or ours, writing on
God's rights? Those sacred documents were penned only for the care and
protection of human rights and civil liberties.
That in itself can tell you something of how "evangelical" our founding
fathers were.
If a person wants to hear about "God's Rights" go to Church.
If a person wants to read about "Man's Rights" read the documents our
Founding Fathers wrote.
The Founding Fathers were not interested in God's rights.
They knew when God is put into government, there is no room for man.
God was retired from politics.
Christopher A. Lee
The problem is that ignorant believers imagine that whenever anybody
makes any referennce to a god, a creator etc they immediately assume
it means their version. No matter what the person saying it meant.
Sharon
>
> The problem is that ignorant believers imagine that whenever anybody
> makes any referennce to a god, a creator etc they immediately assume
> it means their version. No matter what the person saying it meant.
>
And, the problem with Biblicists like Dave is that if they're given an inch,
they always take a mile (at the expense of others' freedom). That's exactly
what they're after, unfortunately. It's not enough for them to have the
freedom to bow their head gracefully and worship whatever god they call
their creator -- without fear of persecution. Dave is far too blessed --
they want that the good old days of Christian Inquisition return and
removing the infidels from the population, because afterall, as they claim
"America was founded on Judeo Christian priniciples." Bush Sr expressed he
didn't feel atheists should be considered citizens -- where do these fools
get their ideas from? They're certainly not *American* ideals.
Quite the contrary -- this nation was formed to escape religious bigotry and
persecution. Dave would only change his mind, if he were zipped back a few
centuries finding himself in a court, tried for heresy by the Inquisition...
we would see a different Dave with a completely different attitude -- a
humbler spirit. If he only had reason to fear smelling his flesh roasting
over an open flame... tongue cut out so he couldn't curse his accusors and
executioners.. then Dave would understand *why* every jot and tittle was
written, exactly as it was in the Declaration of Independence,
Constitution.... as he's cooking in the flames, he would begin to ask the
question "Why would an intelligent designer create something this painful?
and if so, why did he give me a nervous system that I must endure this
misery?" We would hear Dave scream from within the billowing smoke "Lord!
Why have you forsaken me?"
R. Baldwin
news:1104183863.a881bd8665a8e2d0034f0717650d7393@teranews...
I don't believe most fundamentalists are capable of understanding other
viewpoints. It is true that they are sometimes persecuted by others, who
call them names like "Jesus Freaks" and other epithets. On the other hand,
they can't seem to grasp that plunking the Ten Commandments down in front of
a courthouse or leading a prary in front of a classroom denies others the
rights they want for themselves.
It seems to be exacerbated by the views many of them hold, that theirs is
the only true version of Christianity, that non-Christians are doomed to
Hell and must be saved during this brief time on Earth, and that they are
personally called upon by God to save them. That others might find this
attitude offensive does not seem to occur to them- after all, what could be
more noble than saving another person's soul?
The result is, while I'm sure they have no intention of persecuting anybody,
that is the end effect of their behavior.
Sharon
"R. Baldwin" <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote in message
news:7T%zd.9784$L7.6272@trnddc05...
You are so correct and it brings to mind the old saying "The road to Hell
was paved with good intentions."
Pastor Dave
>
>> "Pastor Dave" <newsgr...@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> You are acting like these men professed
>>>>>>> belief in a personal God outside their jobs and then
>>>>>>> became atheists when they entered the doors to meet for
>>>>>>> Congress. That's ridiculous.
>> You are saying an atheist is incapable of creating a fair constitution? --
>> you are saying these men held beliefs in a god, therefore it might as well
>> be the Christian one -- and that they intended God be forced on all
>> Americans?
>
>When I asked this question, what to expect except silence from Dave.
You are a liar. I answered the post. Now I will give
you an opportunity to withdraw your accusation, before
I prove to all that you are a liar.
Your psychosis is starting up again, Sharon. I knew it
would only be a matter of time.
Pastor Dave
>
>"Pastor Dave" <newsgr...@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:5to0t0p7o411ivdme...@4ax.com...
>
>>>> I wouldn't like it, but I would expect it if they are
>>>> devout Muslims.
>
>You expect *religion* as part of speech at graduation? Personally, I do not.
I didn't say I "expect" anything. I said that no one
has the right to stop someone from religious expression
in their graduation speech.
>SHARON: "Great, and when an atheist student does their Valedictorian speech
>praising
>their reasoning facilities and lack of belief in God, as the cause of their
>academic success -- you'll be so tolerant."
>
>Where did I include the word "religion" in my quote above?
You are the one who mentioned an atheist in a
discussion about religious free speech and yet, also
claim that atheism is not a religion.
Pastor Dave
the Mt. Everest, "R. Baldwin"
<res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> pontificated:
>> Fact: The first thing the Constitution does is protect
>> religious freedom from government intrusion.
>
>Actually, no. That would be the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights is the first 10 Amendments of the
Constitution.
>> It boils down to these three facts and no one can deny
>> that they are facts. On this basis, no one can say
>> that this nation was founded as a secular nation. That
>> is a foolish position, considering the above three
>> facts.
>>
>
>This is a non-sequitur. Your three facts (one of which is wrong)
It isn't non-sequitur and it isn't wrong. See above.
>do not
>necessarily lead to a conclusion that the United States is a non-secular
>nation. There are now secular nations in Europe that allow religious freedom
>which the majority opt not to practice, even as the majority of U.S.
>citizens opt to practice some form of faith.
I don't care what is NOW. The fact is, that a big
issue was religious freedom, because the people were
religious and in this country, the government was
founded to serve the people and the officials in
government as deputies to the people, not vice versa.
>On the other hand, if you actually read what I wrote, you'll see that I
>pointed out the United States has a secular _Government_, meaning it has no
>establishment of religion, as opposed to being a secular _nation_, which
>public opinion polls show it is clearly not.
But it isn't a secular government. It is simply a
government that cannot force any one religion. Your
argument is the one people use to claim that religious
expression should be kept out of everything to do with
the government. The fact is, the government is of the
people and the people are religious and escaped
religious persecution. Government cannot ban religious
expression in any place, no matter where it is.
R. Baldwin
> On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 20:01:26 +0000 (UTC), while scaling
> the Mt. Everest, "R. Baldwin"
> <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> pontificated:
>
>
>>> Fact: The first thing the Constitution does is protect
>>> religious freedom from government intrusion.
>>
>>Actually, no. That would be the Bill of Rights.
>
> The Bill of Rights is the first 10 Amendments of the
> Constitution.
Of course it is. That was never in question. Your statement above, "the
first thing the Constitution does is protect religious freedom from
government intrusion," is in error. The original Constitution included no
such statement; and the Bill of Rights is not placed in front of the
original Article I Section 1.
The first thing the Constitution does, after the Preamble, is Article I
Section1, "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a
Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of
Representatives."
The First Amendment is not the first thing the Constitution did.
>
>
>>> It boils down to these three facts and no one can deny
>>> that they are facts. On this basis, no one can say
>>> that this nation was founded as a secular nation. That
>>> is a foolish position, considering the above three
>>> facts.
>>>
>>
>>This is a non-sequitur. Your three facts (one of which is wrong)
>
> It isn't non-sequitur and it isn't wrong. See above.
>
Your "fact" was in error, and your statement most certainly is a
non-sequitur, as I showed.
>
>>do not
>>necessarily lead to a conclusion that the United States is a non-secular
>>nation. There are now secular nations in Europe that allow religious
>>freedom
>>which the majority opt not to practice, even as the majority of U.S.
>>citizens opt to practice some form of faith.
>
> I don't care what is NOW. The fact is, that a big
> issue was religious freedom, because the people were
> religious and in this country, the government was
> founded to serve the people and the officials in
> government as deputies to the people, not vice versa.
I agree with this statement, but it does not change the problems with your
argument.
>
>
>>On the other hand, if you actually read what I wrote, you'll see that I
>>pointed out the United States has a secular _Government_, meaning it has
>>no
>>establishment of religion, as opposed to being a secular _nation_, which
>>public opinion polls show it is clearly not.
>
> But it isn't a secular government. It is simply a
> government that cannot force any one religion. Your
> argument is the one people use to claim that religious
> expression should be kept out of everything to do with
> the government. The fact is, the government is of the
> people and the people are religious and escaped
> religious persecution. Government cannot ban religious
> expression in any place, no matter where it is.
>
Perhaps you might explain how you see the difference between a non-secular
Government and a secular one? You appear to be using a definition rather
different from the rest of us. If a Government is precluded by its
Constitution from establishing a religion, how can it possibly be anything
but secular? If it is non-secular, then which religion does it have? If we
go by greatest number of adherents, and your premise was correct, the U.S.
Government would be Roman Catholic. Would you be pleased to be a citizen of
a country that was officially Roman Catholic?
I don't, by the way, argue that religious expression should be kept out of
everything to do with Government. Given the exigencies of military life, I
take no issue with state-sponsored chaplains. Neither do I take issue with
public officials making religious statements under some circumstances.
Questions such as whether there is a captive audience or whether Government
appears to be favoring one sect over another make a tremendous difference,
in my opinion.
The Supreme Court, by the way, has banned almost all forms of religious
expression by Government, because in most cases it has the effect of
establishing religion. As a private citizen, nothing prevents you from
holding a peacable assembly in a public setting where you make relgious
statements. The Constitution does, however, prevent a public school teacher
from leading students in prayer in class.
Incidentally, the people who escaped religious persecution in Europe for the
most part turned around and practiced it on others as soon as they reached
America. The only exception I'm aware of is the Quakers. In Massachussetts,
the Congregationalists persecuted other sects. In Virginia, the Anglicans
persecuted other sects. For a time, Maryland persecuted non-Catholics.
Religion in colonial America has a pretty spotty record.
Pastor Dave
>Here's your quote again Dave:
Once again, you make a speech and imply that I did not
respond already to your question, when I did.
Pastor Dave
>Ad Hominem attacks. Killfile imminent.
>Wait, that's what PD wants, because the questions have grown to stiff for
>him.
Your psychosis is starting up again. You are starting
multiple threads with the same post and you are
implying again things that I did not say and attacking
me based on your own delusions. Start taking your meds
again, please.
Sharon
"Pastor Dave" <newsgr...@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> Once again, you make a speech and imply that I did not
> respond already to your question, when I did.
Gee Dave I really don't recall you answering this question with a yes or no:
COULD AN ATHEIST HAVE BEEN FAIR ENOUGH TO PEN THE DOCS, DAVE?