Re: Political Correctness? Christmas and other O/T stuff.
mlw
> mlw wrote:
>> Wendy Duzz wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> America was founded on Christian principles much like Israel was
>>> settled on Judeo principles and Arab countries on mostly Muslim
>>> principles.
>>
>> This is, of course, a lie. The separation of church and state was VERY
>> important to the founding fathers.
>
> Just not important enough to put it in the constitution.
Are you professionally ignorant?
Try the The U.S. Bill of Rights.
mlw
> mlw wrote:
>> Rebecca wrote:
>>
>>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>> On 2005-12-14, Rebecca <nos...@godlikebuthumble.com> wrote:
>>>>> mlw wrote:
>>>>>> Wendy Duzz wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> America was founded on Christian principles much like Israel was
>>>>>>> settled on Judeo principles and Arab countries on mostly Muslim
>>>>>>> principles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is, of course, a lie. The separation of church and state was
>>>>>> VERY important to the founding fathers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just not important enough to put it in the constitution.
>>>>
>>>> The US Bill of Rights starts thusly:
>>>>
>>>> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
>>>> or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
>>>
>>> So? That says /nothing/ about separation of church and state. Only
>>> that the government can't establish, or promote an 'Official
>>> Religion' for the United States. The whole "Separation" thing came
>>> from a stupid Supreme Court decision, not from the Constitution.
>>
>> The phrase "separation of church and state" comes from letters and
>> documents penned by Jefferson describing the 1st amendment, "thus
>> building a wall of separation between church and state," it was, yes,
>> the supreme court that was asked to rule on a matter, and to
>> interpret the 1st amendment, it looked to the words and writings of
>> Jefferson for guidance. This is, in fact, common and proper. I court
>> is expected to use history of a law and the writings of the author to
>> further understand what may be ambiguous in a particular context.
>
> I know all that. Apparently though, those that keep claiming that
> Separation of Church and State is _IN_ the constitution, don't. It is the
> decision of a Supreme Court panel, as I said.
Actually, it is a stronger source, it is from the words of the author of the
1st amendment about what the 1st amendment is intended to accomplish.
mlw
mlw
> mlw wrote:
>> Julie wrote:
>>
>>> mlw wrote:
>>>> Dustin Cook wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> mlw wrote:
>>>>>> To any person who has any grasp
>>>>>> of US history, "separation of church and state" is obvious in his
>>>>>> [Jefferson] words.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Translation: mlw has interpreted it to say something that is
>>>>> _doesn't_ say.
>>>>
>>>> It isn't just me, its historians, scholars, and the U.S. supreme
>>>> court.
>>>
>>>
>>> And in that case, four wrongs don't make it right.
>>
>> It isn't wrong, which is the point you are trying so hard to make.
>> "Separation of church and state," by all available historical
>> documents, was the intention of the first amendment.
>
> Since you insist on reading something that is not there into the First
> Amendment, I can only imagine what you 'interpret' the Second Amendment to
> say.
First of all, "I" am not reading anything into it.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
This clause has meaning, the problem in any court of law is how do you
interpret the meaning of what is written to conflicts which must be
settled. A judge must take the words, as written, within the context they
were written, to judge the nature of a dispute as it applies to the law.
According to all the writings on the first amendment by the authors and
those who signed it, the phrase "separation of church and state," penned by
Jefforson himself about the 1st amendment, is the effective and agreed upon
meaning and intention of the religion clause.
One can argue all they want, but it is unambiguous to anyone who honestly
wants to interpret the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The nonsense put
forth from the religious right is just that, nonsense with no basis in fact
or history.
> Maybe you should return to school and learn simple English; it
> doesn't require interpretation, it means what it says.
It means exactly what it says, but English or any language used to express
complex ideas without endless lines of pedantically explicit clauses must
be interpreted.
You should take a class or two in law. Laws are never black and white, they
are always interpreted and such interpretation always involves either
precedent or documents and history of the law.
mlw
> mlw wrote:
>> Rebecca wrote:
>>
>>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>> On 2005-12-14, Rebecca <nos...@godlikebuthumble.com> wrote:
>>>>> mlw wrote:
>>>>>> Wendy Duzz wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> America was founded on Christian principles much like Israel was
>>>>>>> settled on Judeo principles and Arab countries on mostly Muslim
>>>>>>> principles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is, of course, a lie. The separation of church and state was
>>>>>> VERY important to the founding fathers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just not important enough to put it in the constitution.
>>>>
>>>> The US Bill of Rights starts thusly:
>>>>
>>>> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
>>>> or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
>>>
>>> So? That says /nothing/ about separation of church and state. Only
>>> that the government can't establish, or promote an 'Official
>>> Religion' for the United States. The whole "Separation" thing came
>>> from a stupid Supreme Court decision, not from the Constitution.
>>
>> The phrase "separation of church and state" comes from letters and
>> documents penned by Jefferson describing the 1st amendment, "thus
>> building a wall of separation between church and state," it was, yes,
>> the supreme court that was asked to rule on a matter, and to
>> interpret the 1st amendment, it looked to the words and writings of
>> Jefferson for guidance. This is, in fact, common and proper. I court
>> is expected to use history of a law and the writings of the author to
>> further understand what may be ambiguous in a particular context.
>
> I know all that. Apparently though, those that keep claiming that
> Separation of Church and State is _IN_ the constitution, don't. It is the
> decision of a Supreme Court panel, as I said.
When people say "it is in the constitution," I should it is understood that
this means it is the "intention of" a specific section of the constitution.
The 2nd amendment, doesn't say you may own a gun. It says that you have the
right to bear arms. The "Bear arms" clause has been interpreted as having
the right to own and operate arms. "Arms" has been interpreted as meaning
guns as well as swords and other forms of arms, this is because they had
guns back then and they were part of a militia.
If you wish to say that interpretation is *NOT* part of the constitution
then many of the rights both liberals and conservatives alike depend on are
flawed. In fact, however, the supreme court has the job of interpreting the
constitution:
Aticle III
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity,
arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and
treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases
affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of
admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United
States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more
states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens
of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands
under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens
thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
So, in effect, if the Supreme Court says it is in the constitution, for all
practical purposes, it is.