Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

Law and religion - moral issues

0 views

Skip to first unread message

bucke...@nospam.net

unread,

Nov 30, 2003, 8:39:05 AM11/30/03

Do you even understand what the above was saying?

Do you understand that Jefferson was calling for a totally secular public
school system?

You do understand that it would be impossible to have ANY religious
reading, instruction or exercise that wouldn't be inconsistent with the
tenets of SOME religion sect or denomination?

Thus he was calling for a public school system that would be totally free
of any religious reading, instruction or exercises.

And to go along with that was the following:

Thomas Jefferson supported Bible reading in school; this is proven
by his service as the first president of the Washington, D.C. public
schools, which used the Bible and Watt's Hymns as textbooks for reading.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/arg6.htm

Another Jefferson Quote Debunked
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/jefschl1.htm

Jefferson, Religion, and the Public Schools.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/jeffschl.htm

bucke...@nospam.net

unread,

Nov 30, 2003, 9:52:04 AM11/30/03

idont...@toemail.com (M. Clark) wrote:

FACTS:
(1) Thomas Jefferson did not create church state separation in Virginia or
in the United States. James Madison played a far larger role in that
particular undertaking, both in Virginia and in the United States than his
buddy Jefferson did.

(2) The USSC did not give Thomas Jefferson's writings per se any force of
law. The USSC in a 1879 case said in dicta the following:

In a little more than a year after the passage of this statute the
convention met which prepared the Constitution of the United States. Of
this convention Mr. Jefferson was not a member, he being then absent as
minister to France. As soon as he saw the draft of the Constitution
proposed for adoption, he, in a letter to a friend, expressed his
disappointment at the absence of an express declaration insuring the
freedom of religion, but was willing to accept it as it was, trusting that
the good sense and honest intentions of the people would bring about the
necessary alterations. 1 Five of the States, while adopting the 1
Constitution, proposed amendments. Three, New Hampshire, New York and
Virginia, included in one form or another a declaration of religious
freedom in the changes they desired to have made, as did also North
Carolina, where the convention at first declined to ratify the Constitution
until the proposed amendments were acted upon. Accordingly, 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. Adhering to this expression of the Supreme will of the
Nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see, with sincere
satisfaction, the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to
all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to
his social duties." 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.
SOURCE: Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, (1879)

The case was NOT decided on the Establishment Clause or the Free Exercise
Clause but rather was decided under civil contract/marriage law.
Thus what the court said with regards to Jefferson, etc was not a legal
ruling or even a real rule of law.

In 1947 the US Supreme, for the very first time in history defined the
meaning of the Establishment Clause.
In doing so it cited the following sources as background that led them to
define the Establishment Clause in this particular manner:

Everson v. Bd of Ed defined the Establishment Clause. Here are the
footnotes that the court used to pen that definition:
Footnotes to Everson v. Bd of Ed.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?S12525BA6

Readers will note (you won't since facts, truth etc are of no importance
to you. You are a liar and have a agenda, and trolling that agenda is all
you are interested in) that Jefferson was only one of many historical
sources the court looked at in formulating the Establishment Clause
definition.

That definition is as follows: (You will see the one sentence
acknowledgement of Jefferson's metaphor but you will also see that metaphor
isn't really defined or used as an actual rule of law.)

ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE:
The Establishment Clause as defined by the USSC in Everson v. Bd of Ed,
1947

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at
least this:

(1) neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.

(2) Neither can pass laws which aid one religion,
(2a) aid all religions,
(2b) or prefer one religion over another.

(3) Neither can force
(3a) nor influence a person to go to
(3b) or to remain away from church against his will
(3c) or force him to profess a belief
(3d) or disbelief in any religion.

(4) No person can be punished for entertaining [p*16]
(4a) or professing religious beliefs
(4b) or disbeliefs,
(4c) for church attendance
(4d) or non-attendance.

(5) No tax in any amount,
(5a) large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities
(5b) or institutions, whatever they may be called,
(5c) or whatever form they may adopt to teach
(5d) or practice religion.

(6) Neither a state
(6a) nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the
(6b) affairs of any religious organizations
(6c) or groups,
(6d) and vice versa.

In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by
law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."
Reynolds v. United States, supra, at 164.

************************************
TESTS:
************************************

Over many years and many cases mainly involving religion in public schools,
the Supreme Court has developed three "tests" to be applied to religious
practices for determining their constitutionality under the Establishment
Clause.
************************************
The LEMON TEST

Based on the 1971 case of Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13, the
Court will rule a practice unconstitutional if:

1.It lacks any secular purpose. That is, if the practice lacks any
non-religious purpose.

2.The practice either promotes or inhibits religion.

3.Or the practice excessively (in the Court's opinion) involves government
with a religion.

************************************
The HISTORICAL TEST

Based on Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983). Requires a unambiguous and
unbroken history of more than 200 years. BTW, the history that was employed
by the Court in Marsh v. Chambers was flawed. See:

Chaplains and Congress
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/chaptest.htm

Chief Justice Burger, I Would Like You To Meet Mr. Madison
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/meet.htm

Discrepancies
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/discrep.htm

The Political Move That Backfired
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/backfire.htm
************************************
THE ENDORSEMENT TEST

Drawing from the 1989 case of Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, the
practice is examined to see if it unconstitutionally endorses religion by
conveying "a message that religion is 'favored,' 'preferred,' or 'promoted'
over other beliefs."

************************************
THE COERCION TEST

Based on the 1992 case of Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 the religious
practice is examined to see to what extent, if any, pressure is applied to
force or coerce individuals to participate. The Court has defined that:
"Unconstitutional coercion occurs when:
(1) the government directs
(2) a formal religious exercise
(3) in such a way as to oblige the participation of objectors."

************************************
>:|So with respect to periods that no longer exist, what are you talking
>:|about?

History, liar, history and context, liar, context, something you aren't
very familiar with.

All of this has been shown you by a half a dozen or more people
over the past several months, over and over again.
You repeatedly ignore that and return again posting your same examples and
lies in your compulsive trolling habit.|

>:|> Jefferson's writing and most of his actions taken as a whole portrays a man
>:|> who in action, opinion and belief was a strict separationist fully and
>:|> completely championing strict church (religion) and state (govt)
>:|> separation and he favored it on both the state and federal level.
>:|
>:|Not only did Jefferson recognize that the Constitution gives the States
>:|the power to address religious issues but Jefferson attended worship
>:|services in the Nation's Capitol building. Indeed, several government
>:|buildings in DC were used for worship services.

LOL!!!!
This has been addressed over and over with you and only shows beyond any
doubt you are nothing but a troll.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?D2A732CA6

http://makeashorterlink.com/?J1B723CA6

http://makeashorterlink.com/?A6D743CA6

>:|> The courts viewed history including Jefferson's writing and the writings of
>:|> others in defining the Establishment Clause.
>:|> You are the one who misunderstands, not that isn't even true, Far too many
>:|> people have pointed out your errors, with facts, not opinions for ignorance
>:|> of history or law to apply anymore.
>:|> You are a unethical and dishonest troll who intestinally distorts truth,
>:|> history, facts, etc.
>:|
>:|If you examine the opinions of several church/state separation cases you
>:|will see that the Court probably didn't even know about Jefferson's
>:|other writings and consequently misunderstood the scope of the 1st
>:|Amendment's establishment clause.

LOL, and I note that you din't provide any evidence and even was wishy
washy to the point of saying PROBABLY.

You wanht to know what thjey knew and didn't know, here liar:

Everson v. Bd of Ed defined the Establishment Clause. Here are the
footnotes that the court used to pen that definition:
Footnotes to Everson v. Bd of Ed.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?S12525BA6

>:|M. Clark, internet troll and nutcase

Try the following as well.

* Christian Orthodoxy And The Founders
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/orthodox.htm

bucke...@nospam.net

unread,

Nov 30, 2003, 11:29:40 AM11/30/03

idont...@toemail.com (M. Clark) wrote:

>:|>
>:|> Even the above quote by Jefferson doesn't call for a ban of *all*
>:|> religious teachings in *all* schools. Just the teachings which are
>:|> "inconsistent with the tenets of any religious sect or denomination".
>:|> In other words, your child will never be taught any religious beliefs
>:|> that are inconsistent with yours. You should be glad.
>:|
>:|I'm sure that communites can negotiate on what religious instruction, if
>:|any, is taught in community public schools.
>:|
>:|>
>:|> Besides, teaching religion in a secular school would kind of defeat
>:|> the purpose of having a secular school in the first place, don't you
>:|> think?
>:|
>:|I think that Jefferson was reasonably talking about religious
>:|instruction in public schools. Again, people don't understand that
>:|Jefferson wasn't talking about church/state separation for the States.
>:|His writings clearly show that he was only referring to the Federal
>:|government.

Two writings that you keep posting over and over again. Two writings out of
the thousands of things he wrote and hundreds of letters, etc that he wrote
that referred to religion in some form or fashion.

That is how bankrupt your position is. You can only present an excerpt
from his second Inaugural address and a excerpt from a letter that was
completely about church and state, yet which you only select one excerpt
from.

Jefferson favored church state separation on state level and national
level. He was a strict separationist. However during the years 1787 to
Jefferson's death the church and state separation that had been embodied
in the U S Constitution:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article. VI.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be
made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made,
under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the
Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in
the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

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.

Article the third [Amendment I] [1]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
did not apply to the states--though the supremacy clause language "could"
have been used at some future time to perhaps apply that separation to the
states. For sure the anti-feds were sure worried about that possibility.

That is the only thing those two excerpts you keep parading in theses
newsgroups means.
JEFFERSON WAS ACKNOWLEDGING THE LAW AS IT EXISTED AT THAT TIME.
Nothing more, nothing less.

That is not the law presently and hasn't been the law for since 1940 for
the Free Exercise Clause and 1947 for the Establishment Clause.

As early as 1789 there was a intent to limit the states

========================================================
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
[Selective Incorporation]
========================================================

We could discuss this topic for years. People have been discussing this
topic for years. Thus, we have decided that the best course to take here is
to provide some limited information and a lot of reference material that
others can use. That way those seriously interested in this topic can do
their own research.

The reference material is pretty evenly divided between the pro and con
sides of this issue.

*****************************************
IRONICALLY THE FIRST FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

On June 8, 1789 James Madison delivered his long awaited list of proposed
amendments to the House of Representatives. After several debates
scattered throughout the summer the following is a partial list of the
amendments that was passed by the House of Representative and sent on to
the Senate.

Note especially Article the Fourteenth. That article, passed by the
necessary number of votes called for selective incorporation against the
state some of the other Articles.
This particular article was defeated in the Senate after secret debate and
a secret vote. It must be remember at this particular point in time in
American History, the House of Representative represented "the people."
It's members were elected directly by the people. The Senate, on the
other hand, represented the states. It's members were selected by the state
legislatures.

It is ironic that this particular Article was numbered fourteen and that it
called for selective incorporation of other amendments in the "BORs
package" against the states. It is interesting that it was passed by "the
people's" representatives, but defeated by the state's representatives. It
is very ironic that another Article also numbered fourteen was passed some
79 or so years later and that it would, in time be used to selectively
incorporate other Articles of the "BORs package" against the states.

****************************************************************

AUGUST 24, 1789--FIRST FEDERAL CONGRESS (Amendments, references to
religion)

House Resolution and Articles of Amendment,
August 24, 1789

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATE In the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, 14th August, 1789,
RESOLVED, BY THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN CONGRESS ASSEMBLED, two thirds Of both Houses
deeming it necessary, That the following Articles be proposed to the
Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of
the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three
fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes
as part of the said Constitution--Viz.
ARTICLES in addition to, and amendment of, the Constitution of the
United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the
Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the
original Constitution.
ARTICLE THE THIRD.
Congress shall make no law establishing religion or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of Conscience be infringed.
ARTICLE THE FOURTH.
The Freedom of Speech, and of the Press, and the right of the People
peaceably to assemble, and consult for their common good, and to apply co
the Government for a redress of grievances, shall nor be infringed.
ARTICLE THE FIFTH.
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the
best security of a free Scare, the right of the People to keep and bear
arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing
arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person
ARTICLE THE FOURTEENTH.
No State shall infringe the right of trial by Jury in criminal cases, nor
the rights of conscience, nor the freedom of speech, or of the press.
Teste,
JOHN BECKLEY, CLERK
In Senate, August 25, 1789
Read and ordered to be printed for the
consideration of the Senate.
SOURCE OF INFORMATION:: Creating the Bill of Rights, The Documentary Record
from the First Federal Congress, Edited by Helen E. Veit, Kenneth R.
Bowling, Charlene Bangs Bickford, The John Hopkins University Press,
Baltimore and London, 1991, pp 37-41
====================================================
and as early as 1898 there was recogonition that the lauguage of the 14th
Amendment could limits the states in areas of religion.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1898
THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IN THE UNITED STATES

SECTION L-- Religious Liberty

The Constitution -- The Constitution as originally adopted declared
that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any
office or public trust under tile United States." By amendment it was
further provided that "Congress shall make no law respecting an
Establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," Both
these provisions, it; will be seen are limitations upon the powers of
Congress only. Neither' the original Constitution nor any of the early
amendments undertook to protect the religions. liberty of the people of
the States against the action of their respective state governments. ***The
fourteenth- amendment is perhaps; broad enough to give some securities if
they should be needful.***(emphasis added)

[SNIP]

(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IN THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, By Thomas M. Cooley, LL.D., Third Edition
By Andrew C. McLaughlin, A.M., L.L B. [Professor of American History,
University of Michigan] Little, Brown, and Company 1898, pp 224-227)
================================================================
>:|
>:|>
>:|> Or do you wish to eliminate secular schools?
>:|
>:|I wish for the States to understand and reclaim their constitutional
>:|right to address religious issues, a right which even Thomas Jefferson,
>:|Mr. "separation of church and state" himself, understood that they had.

LOL, see above!!!!!

>:|Again, communities can decide how public schools can best address the
>:|religious needs of their children.

Neither communities nor public schools determine, address, acknowledge
religious needs of their students in the public school system. it's not
their job, nor are they permitted to do so by law, nor would the vast
majority of parents want the community or public schools to do such a
thing.

>:|> Do you wish to deny American citizens the right to choose their
>:|> childrens' religious education?
>:|

They have that right and will continue to have that right.
They can do that at home and or in the church of their choice.
Students who attend most public schools do so for approx 1440 hours a year.
There are approx 8760 hours in a year. By far the proper place and
potential to address the religious needs of a child is while away from
school with the parents and/or any religious representatives the parents
might choose.

Public schools are not qualified to perform that function.

>:|Don't bother me with strawman rebuttals.

LOL, and of course anything that doesn't agree with your lies and trolling
is straw, right?

>:|M. Clark, internet troll and nutcase.

bucke...@nospam.net

unread,

Dec 1, 2003, 8:10:03 AM12/1/03

idont...@toemail.com (M. Clark) wrote:
>:|> >The Supreme Court has been basing its church/state separation decisions
>:|> >on Jefferson's famous "separation of church and state" writing. This is
>:|> >evidenced by the Court opinions for cases such as Everson and Murdock.
>:|> >But these opinions don't reference Jefferson's lesser known writings
>:|> >which show that Jefferson recognized that the States do have the
>:|> >constitutional power to address religious issue. The bottom line is
>:|> >that the SC hasn't done its homework with respect to Jefferson and is
>:|> >consequently screwing things up with respect to church/state separation
>:|> >issues.

>:|<tonyofbexa...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
>:|> No, idiot, the Court does not have to pay any attention to any of
>:|> Jefferson's writings. Try to grasp that very simple fact. It is also
>:|> doubtful that the members are not more familiar with Jefferson than
>:|> you are. One more time: The Court has no obligation whatsoever to
>:|> pay attention to the opinions of Jefferson, but they may do so if they
>:|> wish. Got it?

idont...@toemail.com (M. Clark) wrote:
>:|What I "Got" is that both the Everson and Murdock opinions refer to
>:|Jefferson's famous church/state separation writing,

[me]
Precisely which famous church/state separation writing?

idont...@toemail.com (M. Clark) wrote:
>:|the Everson opinion
>:|not only explicitly attributing the writing

[me]
Precisely which writing?

idont...@toemail.com (M. Clark) wrote:
>:|to Jefferson but using
>:|Jefferson's words in the bottom line of the document.
>:|

>:|M. Clark, internet troll and nutcase

FACTS:
(1) Murdock v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943).
• States the rule for assessing the constitutionality of a fee imposed by
the state upon the exercise of free speech protected by the First Amendment
(2) Thomas Jefferson is not mentioned, by name, anywhere in Murdock
(3) In one of the dissenting opinions part of Jefferson's Statute
for Religious freedom, penned by Jefferson and passed into law by Madison
was mentioned and quoted:
"The Statute of Religious Freedom was passed in Virginia in 1785. The
substance was in paragraph II: '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.' 12 Hening Statutes of Va. 86." Footnote 5, The dissenting
opinions of Mr. Justice REED and Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER in Jones v. City
of Opelika, 63 S.Ct. at page 891 cover these cases also. Murdock v.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)
(4) That was the only Jeffersonian reference in the entire opinion,
majority or dissenting.
(5) James Madison, however, is mentioned by name and quoted in one
of the dissents in Murdock.
(6) Nothing that Jefferson ever said, did, or wrote played any role
at all in the holding of Murdock v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 319 U.S.
105 (1943)

Now for Everson:

From: bucke...@nospam.net
Subject: Re: USSC to rule on Pledge
Newsgroups: alt.atheism, alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.education,
alt.religion.christian, alt.society.liberalism, misc.education,
alt.politics.usa.republican
Date: 2003-10-15 14:45:29 PST

idont...@toemail.com (M. Clark) wrote:

>:|In my opinion,

Your opinion is rather meaningless.

>:|the root of the problem is that the USSC not only
>:|inappropriately read Thomas Jefferson's church/state separation writing
>:|into the 1st Amendment

Thomas Jefferson didn't invent Church state separation in this country

>:|but also wrongly construed Jefferson's reference
>:|to "state" to mean both federal and state governments.

They didn't do that either.

From: bucke...@nospam.net (bucke...@nospam.net)
Subject: Re: Judge Refuses to Remove Ten Commandments Display
Newsgroups: alt.education, alt.politics.liberalism,
alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.politics.usa.republican,
alt.society.liberalism.misc.education
Date: 2003-08-20 12:54:36 PST

idont...@toemail.com (M. Clark) wrote:

>:|<bucke...@nospam.net> wrote:
>:|
>:|> idont...@toemail.com (M. Clark) wrote:
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|Note that judges are often divided on issues anyway so referencing the
>:|> >:|courts doesn''t necessarily carry the authoritive weight you would
>:|> >:|probably like it to.
>:|>
>:|> Duh, rightly or wrongly, the courts establish the law.
>:|
>:|The job of the courts is to ultimately make sure that all laws comply
>:|with the Constitution. But whether or not the courts really understand
>:|the intent of the Founding Fathers as reflected by the Constitution in
>:|another question.

One you are incapable of answering, that is for certain.

>:|With respect to the writings of President Jefferson that I have been
>:|posting which address restrictions on federal and state laws concerning
>:|religious matters, the courts have evidently misunderstood the intent of
>:|the Founding Fathers. The courts are consequently straying the country
>:|away from the explicit, clear language of the First Amendment as
>:|reflected by Jefferson's writings.

Neither Jefferson nor his letter created church state separation.
The Principle of church state separation was embodied in the unamended
constitution while Jefferson was in France.

I'll tell you what you do.

You go to this URL
EVERSON v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF EWING TP., 330 U.S. 1 (1947)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=330&page=1

You read both the majority opinion and the dissent.

After you have done that you check out the citations that were given

Here are some of the essential Footnotes to the decision:

4. See Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 162; cf. Knowlton v. Moore,
178 U.S. 41, 89, 106.

5. See, e.g., Macaulay, History of England (1849) I, cc. 2, 4; The
Cambridge Modern History (1908) V, cc. V, IX, XI; Beard, Rise of American
Civilization (1933) I, 60; Cobb, Rise of Religious Liberty in America
(1902) c. II; Sweet, The Story of Religion in America (1939) c. II; Sweet,
Religion in Colonial America (1942) 320-322.

Poore, Constitutions (1878) II, 1390, 1391. That of Maryland gave to the
grantee Lord Baltimore the Patronages, and Advowsons of all Churches which
. . . shall happen to be built, together
with Licence and Faculty of erecting and founding Churches, Chapels, and
Places of Worship . . . and of causing the same to be dedicated and
consecrated according to the Ecclesiastical Laws of our Kingdom of England,
with all, and singular such, and as ample lights, Jurisdictions,
Privileges, . . . as any Bishop . . . in our Kingdom of England, ever . . .
hath had. . . . MacDonald, Documentary Source Book of American History
(1934) 31, 33. The Commission of
New Hampshire of 1680, Poore, supra, II, 1277, stated:

And above all things We do by these presents will, require and comand our
said Councill to take all possible care for ye discountenancing of vice and
encouraging of virtue and good living, and that, by such examples ye
infidle may be invited and desire to partake of ye Christian Religion, and
for ye greater ease and satisfaction of ye sd loving subjects in matters of
religion, We do hereby require and comand yt liberty of conscience shall be
allowed unto all protestants; yt such especially as shall be conformable to
ye rites of ye Church of Engd shall be particularly countenanced and
encouraged.

bucke...@nospam.net

unread,

Dec 1, 2003, 8:30:26 AM12/1/03

tonyofbexa...@yahoo.dk wrote:
>:|>> The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the state must not be
>:|>> involved with religious issues.

>:|>ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle AKS richard gardiner) wrote:
>:|>Bullcrap. To "be *involved* with religious issues" is not prohibited
>:|>by the high Court. For example, the teaching of religious issues has
>:|>been explicitly allowed in public schools
>:|>
>:|>"School District of Abington Township v. Schempp," 374 U.S. 203, 225
>:|>(1963).

Schempp was a strict separation victory.
However, reader beware, Gardiner AKA Searle is spinning his word ganes
again, part of his standard M.O.

School District Of Abington Township v. Schempp
374 U.S. 203 (1963)
by
Tae Courtney

Facts of the case:

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania by law required that at the beginning of
each school day students were to read at least 10 verses from the Bible and
then recite the Lord’s Prayer. Students could not be excused from these
exercises unless they had a written note from a parent or guardian. These
exercises were followed by the flag salute and then announcements. All of
these exercises were held in the school buildings, under the local school
authorities, and during school sessions. The Schempp family was of the
Unitarian faith and the son and daughter attended Abington Senior High
School. The husband Edward Schempp testified that a literal reading of the
Bible presented religious doctrines “which were contrary to the religious
beliefs which they held, and to their family teaching”. Although the
religious exercises were voluntary, Edward Schempp chose not to have his
children excused from participation due to his belief that it would have a
negative affect on the children’s relationships with their teachers and
classmates.

Question Presented:

Whether or not the Pennsylvania law and Abington’s policy, requiring public
school students to participate in classroom religious exercises, violated
the religious freedom of students as protected by the First and Fourteenth
Amendments.

Decision:

The three-judge federal district court panel agreed with the Schempp
family, declaring that the statute violated the Establishment Clause of the
First Amendment as applied to the States by the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment. The Abington Township School District then appealed.
When brought before the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court also ruled in
favor of the Schempp family. The Court found that the exercises were
essentially religious ceremonies supported by the State and therefore a
violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Since the
students were to read from the “Holy Bible”, a Christian document, the
Court said that the practice preferred the Christian religion. The fact
that a student could be excused from these religious ceremonies was
irrelevant since it did not prevent the school’s actions from violating the
Establishment Clause.

The Lemon Test:

In this case, the Supreme Court used what would become the first two parts
of the Lemon Test in order to reach a decision. The law issued by the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania had to have a secular purpose (first part) and
its primary effect could not be to advance or inhibit a religion (second
part).

Ed Schempp recently died, he was 95.
POSTED WITH PERMISSION FROM HIS SON

Jim

My father died last Saturday morning. I was up in New Hampshire in the
White Mountains, and I thought this is what he would have wanted,
surrounded
by beauty of nature. Did you see the lunar eclipse? My mother and sister
were with him, and they recited poetry and sang songs and spoke to him and
held his hands, although there was no way of knowing if he knew this. We
said good-bye in our different ways. A Japanese Haiku poem says: "The
purity of the moonlight is such that it freezes the water it touches." I
spent some time with candles and wine.

We will have a little memorial service for him in Philadelphia on Nov. 30
when I am giving the sermon at the church where I was raised. We will have
a more formal service next Feb 29, because he was a leap year boy, and 2004
is a leap year.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edward L. Schempp died November 8 at age 95. Ed was a member of the
Germantown Unitarian Church from 1943, later was a co-founder of the
BuxMont
UU Fellowship, later a member of the Cherry Hill (NJ) and Starr King (CA)
UU churches. He is survived by Sidney, his wife of 69 years, his children
Ellery, Roger, and Donna. He was a staunch supporter of humanist thought
and ideals.

Ed always encompassed humanists, atheists, freethinkers, as well as
believers of one stripe or another, in his thoughts, and he loved us all;
he had little patience with the 'hide-bound' and loved to twit them; and in
song, he could sing any traditional hymn with glory in his heart. He
agreed
with humanists, but loved Sunday song and a thought-provoking talk.

A dedicated UU for 'liberal religious thought', he was deeply interested in
social justice, civil rights, civil liberties, in issues of separation of
church and state, and humanist values. In 1963, the Supreme Court decided
Abington vs. Schempp, a landmark decision that found ritual Bible-reading
in
the public schools a violation of the First Amendment's clause prohibiting
"establishment of religion", pursued with the assistance of the ACLU, of
which he was a proud life-long member.

In 1984, responding to a call from the UUA to summarize UU concepts, his
words were selected as encapsulating UU values. These were published by
Beacon Press and circulated on purple postcards:

"Unitarian Universalism is a fierce belief in the way of freedom and
reverence for the sacred dignity of each individual. With Jefferson we
'have sworn eternal hostility against every tyranny over the mind'.

"Unitarian Universalism is cooperation with a universe that created us. It
is a celebration of life. It is being in love with goodness and justice.
It is a sense of humor about absolutes.

"Unitarian Universalism is faith in people, hope for tomorrow's child,
confidence in a continuity that spans all time. It looks not to a perfect
heaven, but toward a good earth. It is respectful of the past, but not
limited to it. It is trust in growing and conspiracy with change. It is
spiritual responsibility for a moral tomorrow."

Ed Schempp received numerous awards, including recognition from the
American
Humanist Association, Americans United, the Freedom from Religion
Foundation, the Philadelphia Freethinkers, and others. The Supreme Court
decision of 1963 serves as a lasting tribute to his 'fierce belief' in
freedom and his love to twit the fundamentalists.

As a personal note, I also mention his love for science and for beauty in
music and nature. Dad inspired in us wonderment in the natural world and
introduced us to the splendors of our National Parks, of our gardens
[excepting squirrels], of the world around us. My adventures and love for
music and other beauties started with his inspiration.

We mourn his passing but remember the light that he shined.

Ellery

*************************************
[ I added this to the original ]

The memorial to Ed Schempp for those who din't know anything about him or
what he accomplished:

Abington School District v. Schempp
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abington_School_District_v._Schempp

tonyofbexa...@yahoo.dk wrote:
>:|You mendacious little twit! Nobody, including you, thinks that your
>:|above writing fairly represents what I was saying. Have you always
>:|been a compulsive liar?
>:|

Yes he has. At least as long as he has been posting in Usenet as himself
(Richard Gardiner -- 3/99 to 9/00) and as Ambrose Searle (5/01-7/01 and
earlier in 03 and now fairly steady for several months)

Just so you know who and what you are dealing with:

**************************
Now for Ambrose Searle AKA Richard Gardiner's rambling discourse I add
this:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[as Gray Shockley said:]
(Your "opinion" is not an adequate citation.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Dave Thompson" said to another but it can be applied to Ambrose Searle
AKA Richard Gardiner as well
Ummmm, you are a historical troll that has been posting this dreck for a
while now. It doesn't matter if you stopped for a while or not. None of
your posts are new, they're just the same thing you've posted before and
have been shown to be baseless. You obviously don't like it when you've
been caught right in the beginning. I'm sure it won't stop you but at least
it serves notice to others that aren't familiar with you who they are
dealing with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take anything that Ambrose Searle aka Richard Gardiner types with a grain
of salt. As he has demonstrated time and time again in the past of several
years ago, the past of a year and half ago and finally quite recently,
truth and him with regards to posting are not on speaking terms.

MY EVIDENCE:

*************************
Gardiner AKA Searle's church state posting history covering 3-99 to 902,
5/02 - 7/02 and this current year
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N16F22596
http://snurl.com/2ws8
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q54F21596 (up to date as of 11/18/03)

*************************
http://makeashorterlink.com/?I2AF32596
http://snurl.com/2wsb
*************************

jal...@cox.net

unread,

Dec 1, 2003, 12:16:11 PM12/1/03

>:|> >idont...@toemail.com (M. Clark) wrote:
>:|> > What I "Got" is that both the Everson and Murdock
>:|> > opinions refer to Jefferson's famous church/state separation

>:|> > writing, the Everson opinion not only explicitly attributing
>:|> > the writing to Jefferson but using Jefferson's words in the

>:|> > bottom line of the document.

>:|>Weatherwax <weath...@worldnet.net> wrote:
>:|> I don't know where you "Got" that information, but Jefferson is
>:|> not mentioned in Murdock (Murdock v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
>:|> 319 U.S. 105 (1943).)

>:|idont...@toemail.com (M. Clark) wrote:
>:|You "Got" the idea that I said that Jefferson is mentioned in Murdock
>:|either because you are inclined to read things into material that isn't
>:|there or you don't read stuff carefully - or both! I never said that
>:|Murdock references Jefferson. I indicated that Murdock references
>:|Jefferson's famous church/state writing.

>:|M. Clark, internet troll and nutcase.

Which famous writing troll?
Where in the opinion did they reference this "Jefferson's famous
church/state writing" you are referring to?
What bearing, if any, did any such reference to any such writing, if it
occurred, have on the holding of that opinion?

bucke...@nospam.net

unread,

Dec 1, 2003, 1:45:08 PM12/1/03

idont...@toemail.com (M. Clark) wrote:

>:|Weatherwax <weath...@worldnet.net> wrote:
>:|
>:|> "M. Clark" <idont...@toemail.com> wrote in message \
>:|>
>:|> >
>:|> > It so happens that Jefferson's church/state separation
>:|> > writing is older than two of the three writings of his that I

>:|> > posted. So the Court gave one of Jefferson's OLDER
>:|> > writings the force of the law in the mid 1900's, long after
>:|> > Jefferson was dead.

>:|>
>:|> The Supreme Court is well aware that prior to the 14th Amendment,
>:|> that the states could meddle in religious matters. Therefore
>:|> that Jefferson's statement that the states could do so is nothing
>:|> new. Do you get that: The Court already knew it.
>:|
>:|SHOW ME where any Court opinion referenced Jefferson's writings
>:|pertaining to the power of the States to address religious issues.

They didn't have to idiot.
The writings that you carefully excerpt (1) one comment out of one letter,
and the entire letter deals with separation of church and state, (2) select
one phrase out of one of his inaugural address and keep offering have one
MAJOR FLAW FOR YOU. Both were penned while legally speaking, the US
Constitution was only being applied to the Federal Government. people knew
that, jefferson knew that and courts then and later knew that. Therefore
your excerpts mean nothing in this day and age, since law began changing
in the late 1800s long after Jefferson's death. That sort of tended to
limit his ability to write of his approval of said changes.

Idiots like Moore and a few other radical libbertarians and ultra right
types push what you are talking about and they even have one USSC Justice
who buys it, none other than Clarence Thomas, but that is it. Even Scalia
dand Rehnquist reject that concept.
***********************************
SOME HISTORY LESSON IS REQUIRED I SEE:
[ACTUAL HISTORY]

(1) 1789

****************************************************************

AUGUST 17, 1789-- FIRST FEDERAL CONGRESS (Amendments)

The committee then proceeded to the fifth proposition:
Article I, Section 10 between the first and second paragraph,
insert 'No state shall infringe the equal rights of conscience, nor the
freedom of speech or of the press, nor of the right of trial by jury in
criminal cases.'
Mr. TUCKER this is offered, I presume, as an amendment to the
constitution of the United States, but it goes only to the alteration of
constitutions of particular states. It will be much better, I apprehend,
to leave the state governments to themselves, and not to interfere with
them more than we already do; and that is thought by many to be rather too
much. I therefore move, Sir, to strike out these words.
Mr. MADISON conceives this to be the most valuable amendment in the
whole list. If there were any reason to restrain the government of the
United States from infringing upon these essential rights, it was equally
necessary that they should be secured against the state governments. He
thought that if they provided against one, it was as necessary to provide
against the other, and it was satisfied that it would be equally grateful
to the people.
Mr. LIVERMORE had no great objection to the sentiment, but he
thought it not well expressed. He wished to make it an affirmative
proposition; 'the equal rights of conscience, the freedom of speech or of
the press, and the right of trial by jury in criminal cases, shall not be
infringed by any state.'
This transposition being agreed to, and MR. TUCKER'S motion being
rejected, the clause was adopted. (In the final wording of the amendments
that was sent to the Senate the transposition had not taken place. No
reason for that mistake is recorded.)
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the
United States (Annals of Congress) August 17, 1789, Vol. I, Joseph Gales,
published by Gales and Seaton, Washington, 1834, pp 749-756 )

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) 1868 The 14th Amendment was ratified.

******************************************
(3) 1898

THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IN THE UNITED STATES

[*** emphasis added***]

SECTION L-- Religious Liberty

(4) The following shows when each provision in the BOR's was incorporated
in the 14th Amendment:

(1) 1897 -- Right to Just Compensation -- Chicago, Burlington & Qunicy
Railway Company v Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897)

(1) 1925 -- FREEDOM OF SPEECH -- Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (19250
[dictum]
1927 -- Fiske v Kansas, 274 U.S. 380 (1927) [holding]

(1) 1931 -- FREEDOM OF THE PRESS -- Near v Minnesota, 283 U.S. 679 (1931)

(6) 1932 -- Assistance of Counsel in capital case -- [my info might be
wrong on the case in this one because it lists the case at 1963, so there
is a typo or something involved in this one] Peterson v City of Greenville,
373 U.S. 244 (1963)

(1) 1937 -- FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY -- DeJonge v Oregon, 299 U.S. (1937)

(1) 1940 -- FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION -- Cantwell v Connecticut, 310 U.S.
296 (1940)

(1) 1947 -- BAN ON RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMENT -- Everson v Board Of Education,
330 U.S. 1 (1947)

(4) 1948 -- Right to public trial -- Oliver, In re, 333 U.S. 257 (1948)

(4) 1949 -- Right against unreasonable Search and Seizure-- Wolf v
Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949)

(1) 1958 -- FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION -- NAACP v Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958)

The rest we are going to just list and not bother to put the case in as
well. If anyone wants the case name let us know.

(4) 1961 -- Exclusionary Rule

(8) 1962 -- Ban on Cruel and Unusual Punishment

(6) 1963 -- Assistance of counsel in all felony cases

(5) 1964 -- Right against Self-incrimination

(6) 1965 -- Right to confront adverse witnesses

(6) 1966 -- Right to impartial trial

(6) 1967 -- Right to Compulsory Process to obtain witnesses

(6) 1967 -- Right to Speedy Trial

(6) 1968 -- Right to Jury in nonpetty criminal cases

(5) 1969 -- Right against Double Jeopardy

(6) 1972 -- Right to counsel imprisonable misdemeanor cases

(6) 1972 -- Right to notice of accusation

(6) 1979 -- Right to a unanimous verdict if only six jurors

(Source information: The Evolving Constitution, by Jethro K. Lieberman,
Random House (1992) pp 260
=========================================================
[LEGAL EVOLUTION OF FIRST AMENDMENT]

(1) The First Amendment, which the Fourteenth makes applicable to the
states, declares that '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 ....' [Majority opinion
Murdock v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)]
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=319&invol=105

***************************************

The real contention of the witnesses is that there can be no taxation of
the occupation of selling books and pamphlets because to do so would be
contrary to the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which now
is held to have drawn the contents of the First Amendment into the category
of individual rights protected [319 U.S. 105, 121] from state
deprivation. Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 666 , 45 S.Ct. 625, 630;
Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 707 , 51 S.Ct. 625, 708; Cantwell v.
Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303 , 60 S. Ct. 900, 903, 128 A.L.R. 1352. . .

The First Amendment reads as follows: '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.'

It was one of twelve proposed on September 25, 1789, to the States by the
First Congress after the adoption of the Constitution. Ten were ratified.
They were intended to be and have become our Bill of Rights. By their terms
our people have a guarantee that so long as law as we know it shall
prevail, they shall live protected from the tyranny of the despot or the
mob. None of the provisions of our Constitution is more venerated by the
people or respected by legislatures and the courts than those which
proclaim for our country the freedom of religion and expression. . .

The amendments were proposed by [319 U.S. 105, 125] Mr. Madison. He was
careful to explain to the Congress the meaning of the amendment on
religion. The draft was commented upon by Mr. Madison when it read: 'No

religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of
conscience be infringed.'1 Annals of Congress 729.

He said that he apprehended the meaning of the words on religion to be that
Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation
of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their
conscience. Id., 730.

It is only in recent years that the freedoms of the First Amendment have
been recognized as among the fundamental personal rights protected by the
Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the states. 11 Until then these
liberties were not deemed to be guarded from state action by the Federal
Constitution. 12 The states placed [319 U.S. 105, 127] restraints upon
themselves in their own constitutions in order to protect their people in
the exercise of the freedoms of speech and of religion. 13 Pennsylvania may
be taken as a fair example. Its constitution reads: 'All men have a natural
and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of
their own consciences; no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect or
support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his
consent; no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere
with the rights of conscience and no preference shall ever be given by law
to any religious establishments or modes of worship.' Purdon's
Penna.Stat.Const., Art. I, Sec. 3.
[dissent-Murdock v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)]
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=319&invol=105

******************************************
The following shows when each provision of the FIRST AMENDMENT was
incorporated in the 14th Amendment:

(1) 1925 -- FREEDOM OF SPEECH -- Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (19250
[dictum]
1927 -- Fiske v Kansas, 274 U.S. 380 (1927) [holding]
(1) 1931 -- FREEDOM OF THE PRESS -- Near v Minnesota, 283 U.S. 679 (1931)
(1) 1937 -- FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY -- DeJonge v Oregon, 299 U.S. (1937)
(1) 1940 -- FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION -- Cantwell v Connecticut, 310 U.S.
296 (1940)
(1) 1947 -- BAN ON RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMENT -- Everson v Board Of Education,
330 U.S. 1 (1947)
(1) 1958 -- FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION -- NAACP v Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958)
(Source information: The Evolving Constitution, by Jethro K. Lieberman,
Random House (1992) pp 260

****************************************
SOME OF THE COURT CASES THAT PRECEDDED EVERSON v. BD OF ED

Some of The Supreme Court's Decisions in Church and State:
Most of these cases are not Establishment Clause cases, a couple are.
However, they do show that Everson v Board of Education in 1947 wasn't the
first time the United States Supreme Court dealt with church and state, as
some people claim.
* Terrett v. Tylor (1815) First case to reach the USSC in the realm of
Church and State
* Vidal v Girard's Executors. (1844) The next case decided by the
United States Supreme Court in which it considered the relationship between
religion and the state.
* Permoli v. Municipality of New Orleans (1845)
* Watson v. Jones (1872)
* Reynolds v. U S (1878)
* Davis v. Beason (1890)
* Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints v. U S (1890)
* Church of the Holy Trinity v. U S (1892)
* Bradford v. Roberts (1890) This was a case directly involving the 1st
Amendment, Establishment Clause.
* Jacobson v. Mass. (1905)
* Quick Bear v. Lapp (1908)
* Arver v. U S (1918) Selective Service case
* Meyer v. Nebraska (1923)
* Cochran v. La. State Board of Education (1930)
* U S v. Macintosh (1931)
* Haminto v. Regents of the U of California (1934)
* Lovell v Griffin (1938)
* Cantwell v. Conn. (1940) First case that applied the Bill of Rights
against the states. This was a Free Exercise case
* Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940)
* Cox v. New Hampshire (1941)
* Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942)
* Jones v. Opelika (1942)
* Murdock v. Pa. (1943)
* Jones v. Opelika (2d) (1943)
* Matrin v. City of Struthers (1943)
* West Virginia State Bd of Ed v. Barnett (1943)
* Taylor v. Mississippi (1943)
* U S v. Ballard (1944)
* Prince v. Mass. (1944)
* Follett v. Town of McCormack (1944)
* In re Summers (1945)
* Girouard v. U S (1946)
* Marsh v. Alabama (1946)
* Everson v. Bd of Ed (1947) First case to define the rule of law with
regards to the establishment clause and first Establishment Clause
application against the states via Bill of Rights.
Church and State in the United States, by Anson Phelps Stokes
(1874-1958) and Leo Pfeffer. Revised one-volume edition, Harper & Row,
Publishers, (1964) pp. 104-129.
********************************************
>:|> It was not Jeffersons "wall of separation" remark. They applied
>:|> the "establishment" clause to the states because freedom of
>:|> religion is so fundamental that it becomes one of the liberties
>:|> quaranteed by by the 14th Amendment.
>:|
>:|You're living in a fantasy world if you think that the 14th Amendement
>:|is being used to protect religious liberties. The Abington Township
>:|School District v. Schempp case, for example, is regarded as the pivotal
>:|case that "kicked God and prayer out of the schools".

LOL.
What sort of God can be physically kicked out of a physical building?
It must be a very little weak pitiful type of God that could be subject to
man and his ability to do this to a God.

However, as usual you are lying again.

(1) Religion in the Public Schools: A Joint Statement of Current Law
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/jnt-sta.htm

(2) Abington School District v. Schempp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abington_School_District_v._Schempp

>:|
>:|Also, don't you remember the following reference?:
>:|
>:|http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/10.html
>:|
>:|It contains this paragraph:
>:|
>:|Other assertions of the liberty to be free from compulsory state
>:|provisions proved unsuccessful, 188 although dicta in these cases
>:|continued to broadly define liberty. 189 And in Loving v. Virginia, 190
>:|a statute prohibiting interracial marriage was held to deny due process.
>:|Marriage was termed ''one of the 'basic civil rights of man''' and a
>:|''fundamental freedom.'' ''The freedom to marry has long been recognized
>:|as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of
>:|happiness by free men.'' The classification of marriage rights on a
>:|racial basis was ''unsupportable.'' But the expansion of the Bill of
>:|Rights to restrict state action, especially the religion and free
>:|expression provisions of the First Amendment, afforded the Court an
>:|opportunity to base certain decisions voiding state policies on these
>:|grounds rather than on due process. 191
>:|
>:|I noted that the above paragraph doesn't mention anything about the 1st
>:|Amendment's establishment clause but refers only to the guaranteed
>:|freedom provisions of the last part of the 1st Amendment:
>:|
>:|"...especially the religion and free expression provisions of the First
>:|Amendment..."
>:|

Well, sonny why don't you use those same annotations where they do refer to
the religious clauses and free expression. They are there you know.

After all the topic is Religion and not marriage.

>:|The Supreme Court ultimately used Jefferson's famous church/state
>:|separation writing to justify broadening the scope of the establishment
>:|clause of the 1st Amendment to the States.

Liar.
The Supreme Court ultimately used a wide variety of sources in reaching a
definition for the Establishment Clause. If any individual gets singled
out it would be Madison, far more than Jefferson.

Everson v. Bd of Ed defined the Establishment Clause. Here are the
footnotes that the court used to pen that definition:
Footnotes to Everson v. Bd of Ed.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?S12525BA6

>:| (The ONLY restriction in the
>:|1st Amendment, as reflected by Jefferson's lesser known writings,
>:|clearly applies ONLY to Congress, not to the States.)

LOL, no one has ever claimed anything different. BTW,
on the lesser claim, where is your evidence that they were less known or
not known or overlooked, etc?

>:|The problem is that the Court couldn't have picked a worse person to
>:|quote with respect to justifying restricting the power of the States to
>:|address religious issues. This is because Jefferson himself recognized
>:|that the States have the power to address religious issues. But the
>:|Court was evidently unaware of Jefferson's complete perspective of
>:|church/state separation and set a precedent for later Courts to make
>:|unconstitutional decisions with respect to church/state separation
>:|cases.
>:|

>:|M. Clark, internet troll and nutcase.

>:|>

The USSC has ignored and thus rejected you position.

This was originally written to another troll, Jeffy Strickland but it will
work here as well.
*************************************
(10) A wacko that is arguing that the U S Constitution is not the supreme
law of the land, that the Alabama Constitution trumps the U S Constitution.
States rights (the sovereign state of Alabama is above the U S
Constitution) takes precedence over the U S Constitution

This same argument was made by another Alabama politician back in the 80s.

I point you in the direction of
Jaffree v Wallace, 554 F.Supp 1104, (1983)
Jaffree v Wallace, 705 F.2d 1526 (1983)
Wallace v Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985)
You have to read all three cases to understand them

This was a Moment of silence school prayer case.
The Wallace being mentioned in the name of the case is none other than that
famous or infamous Gov. Geo Wallace.
The final outcome of this case was this:

Parent of three public school children filed complaint against various
school officials and Alabama state officials which, inter alia, challenged
constitutionality of an Alabama school prayer and meditation statute. The
United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, William
Brevard Hand, Chief Judge, dismissed challenge to the statute, 5M F.Supp.
1104. An appeal was taken. The Court of Appeals, 705 F.2d 1526, affirmed in
part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions. After a suggestion
for rehearing en banc was denied, 713 F.2d 614, appeals were taken. The
Supreme Court, Justice Stevens, held that Alabama statute [Ala.Code 1975, §
161-20.1] authorizing a daily period of silence in public schools for
meditation or voluntary prayer was an endorsement of religion lacking any
clearly secular purpose, and thus was a law respecting the establishment of
religion in violation of First Amendment.

Judgment of Court of Appeals affirmed, Justice Powell filed concurring
opinion, Justice O'Connor filed an opinion concurring in the judgment,Chief
Justice Burger dissented and filed an opinion, Justice White dissented and
filed an opinion, Justice Rehnquist dissented and filed an opinion.
*************************************
What was important about the above case was
(1) its ultimate ruling as stated above.

(2) The ultra conservatives, some libbertarians, the radical religious
right and some conservatives love it because of the flawed historical
dissent Rehnquist wrote and filed. I guess that is why truth isn't
important to them, they hang their hat on a dissenting opinion that is
seriously inaccurate.

(3) The ultra conservatives, some libbertarians, the radical religious
right hate it because the Alabama Federal District Court Judge, a native
of Alabama advanced the same idea that Moore is now trying to advance. That
being 14th Amendment incorporation is illegal and that the Establishment
Clause does not apply to the states.

When Jaffree case reached the USSC the high court had so much contempt for
that line of argument they totally refused to even acknowledge it. Even the
conservatives on the court, including Rehnquist totally ignored that line
of argument and never gave it the light of day.

In short, Jeffy, while any court is liable to do anything and only a fool
would say a court WILL DO THIS or WON'T DO THAT, the odds are better than
50% that given all of the above, including previous refusals to get
involved in a 10 Commandment cases by the high court, this would not be a
case they would take, even if they had a change of heart and wanted to rule
on that topic. This particular case has far too much baggage attached to
it.

bucke...@nospam.net

unread,

Dec 4, 2003, 11:14:35 AM12/4/03

idont...@toemail.com (M. Clark) wrote:
>:|
>:|If you examine the opinions of several church/state separation cases you
>:|will see that the Court probably didn't even know about Jefferson's

>:|other writings and consequently misunderstood the scope of the 1st
>:|Amendment's establishment clause.
>:|
>:|M. Clark, internet liar, troll and nut case.

Here sonny, a present:
This list is compiled from a variety of sources
It is not the complete list
===========================================================
1800
The claims of Thomas Jefferson to the presidency, examined at the bar of
Christianity. [microform] / By a layman. Philadelphia: : Published by
Asbury Dickins, opposite Christ-Church. H. Maxwell, printer.
Columbia-house., 1800. Microfiche E173 .E37 1981 no. 37187
============================================
1829
"Memoirs, Correspondence and Miscellanies from the Papers of Thomas
Jefferson," edited by Thomas Jefferson Randolph, 4 large volumes, and
published in 1829.
===============================
1834
Familiar letters on public characters, and public events [microform] : from
the peace of 1783, to the peace of 1815 / William Sullivan. Boston :
Russell, Odiorne, and Metcalfe, 1834.
Z1236.L53 no. LAC 12540)
====================================
1834
Life of Thomas Jefferson, B.L. Rayner 1834
====================================
1837
Life of Thomas Jefferson, George Tucker, 1837
===================================
1839
The character of Thomas Jefferson [microform] : as exhibited in his own
writings. Dwight, Theodore, 1764-1846 Boston : Weeks, Jordan & Company,
c1839.
Z1236.L53 no. LAC 11456)
================================================
1857
The writings of Thomas Jefferson: being his autobiography, Correspondence,
Reports, Messages, Addresses, and other writings, official and private. 9
Volumes H.A. Washington (Riker N Y 1857) (E302.J464)
=========================================
1858
The Life of Thomas Jefferson, Henry S. Randall, 3 Volumes. (N.Y. N.Y.:
Derby and Jackson, 1858) [One source list this as 1885 instead of 1858]
======================================================
1871
The domestic life of Thomas Jefferson. Comp. from family letters and
reminiscences, by his great-granddaughter, Randolph, Sarah N. (Sarah
Nicholas), 1839-1892. New York, Harper & Brothers, 1871.
E332.25.R2 1871
=============================================================
1892-99
The writings of Thomas Jefferson Collected and edited by Paul Leicester
Ford,
10 Volumes. G. P. Putman's Sons The Knickerbocker Press 1892 (E302.J466)
or LAC 22697-702
===============================
1900
The Jefferson Cyclopedia. Ed. John P. Foley, 2 Volumes. 1900; rept. New
York, 1967
=============================================================
1901
The True Thomas Jefferson, William E. Curtis, (Philadelphia, P A. J B
Lippincott Co., !901)
=================================
1905
The Works of Thomas Jefferson Collected and Edited by Paul Leicester Ford,
12 Volumes G. P. Putnam's Sons The Knickerbocker Press in 1905. (E302.J472)
(Federal Edition. (Only 1000 sets published)
====================================
1904-05
The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, A. Lipscomb & A E Bergh Twenty Volumes
(Washington, D. C.,Issued under the auspices of the Thomas Jefferson
Memorial Association of the United States), 1904-05.
=========================================
1906
Six Historic Americans Paine, Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Lincoln, and
Grant
The Fathers And Saviors Of Our Republic, Freethinkers by John E. Remsburg
Six Historic Americans, Thomas Jefferson by John E. Remsburg (1906)
============================================
1913
The Religious Opinions of Thomas Jefferson, J. Leslie Hall, Sewanee Review,
21 (1913)
===============================================
1916
Thomas Jefferson Correspondence Printed From the Originals in the
Collection of William K. Bixby. Worthington C. Ford. (Boston, Ma. : 1916)
===========================================
1926
The commonplace Book of Thomas Jefferson: A Repertory of His Ideas on
Government, ed. Gilbert Chinard (Baltimore, 1926)
===================================================
1928
The Literary Bible of Thomas Jefferson: His Commonplace Book of
Philosophers and Poets. Ed Gilbert Chinard (1928; rept. New York, 1969)
================================================
1929
Thomas Jefferson: The Apostle of Americanism, Gilbert Chinard (Boston,
1929)
===============================================
1930
Civil and Religious Liberty: Jefferson, O'Connell, Claude Gernade Bowers.
(Worcester, Mass., 1930)
==========================================
1931
The educational Work of Thomas Jefferson, Roy J. Honeywell (Cambridge ,
Mass., 1931)
================================================
1932
Jefferson Principles and Hamilton Principles, James Truslow Adams, (Boston,
1932)
=============================================
1933
Religious Opinions of Thomas Jefferson, Mississippi Valley Historical
Review, 20. William D. Gould (Cedar Rapids, IA: 1933)
==================================
1939
Thomas Jefferson on Democracy, Saul K. Padover (Jc423 J4 1946)
[1939; rept. New York 1969]
==================================================
1941
Founding fathers; man who shaped our tradition, by Kenneth Umbreit.
Port Washington, N.Y., Kennikat Press [c1941, 1969] E302.5.U55 1969
==================================================
1941
The Wisdom of Thomas Jefferson, including the Jefferson Bible, :The Life
and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth." Ed. Edward Boykin, New York, 1941
=======================================
1942
Jefferson. Saul K. Padover. New York, 1942.
================================
1942
Jefferson Himself: The Personal Narrative of a Many-Sided American. Edited
by Bernard Mayo. Charlottesville: The University Press of Virginia, 1942.
=============================================
1943
The Complete Jefferson , Ed.Saul K. Padover, New York, 1943
===========================================
1943
The philosophy of Thomas Jefferson Adrienne Koch (1943; rept. Glouster,
Mass., 1957)
============================================
1944
Basic Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Philip S. Foner (1944; rept. Garden
City, N. Y. 1950)
=============================================
1945
My Head and My Heart. Helen C. Bullock, New York, 1945.
===========================================
1947 Thomas Jefferson: Social Reformer, Henry Wilder Foote, (Boston, 1947)
===========================================
1947
Thomas Jefferson: Champion of Religious Freedom, Advocate of Christian
Morals, Henry W. Foote, (Boston, 1947)
=================================================
1947
Thomas Jefferson, American Humanist. Karl Lehmann, (1947; Rept. Chicago,
1965)
==========================================
1948 --81
Jefferson and his Times, Dumas Malone, 6 Volumes, Boston, 1948-81)
================================================
1950-70
A guide to The Jefferson Papers of the University of Virginia, Special
Collections Department
University of Virginia Library, Z6616.J4 T45 1973
=========================================
1950
Jefferson and Madison. Adrienne Koch, New York, 1950.
==========================================
1950 --
The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Ed. Julian Boyd 27 Volumes to date
(Princeton : Princeton University Press, 1950 - ).
====================================================
1952
Catalogue of the Library of Thomas Jefferson, E. Millicent Sowerby, Comp.,
5 Volumes, (Washington, D.C. 1952-59)
================================================
1953
Jefferson Reader. Ed. Francis Coleman Rosenberger. New York, 1953
===============================
1956
A Jefferson Profile. Ed. Saul K. Padover, New York, 1956
============================================
1958
The domestic life of Thomas Jefferson, compiled from family letters and
reminiscences by his great-granddaughter. Randolph, Sarah N. (Sarah
Nicholas), 1839-1892. With an introd. by
Dumas Malone. New York, Ungar [1958] E332.25.R2 1958
=========================================================
1958
In God We trust; The religious Beliefs and Ideas of the American Founding
Fathers, Norman Cousins, (New York: Harper, 1958).
==============================================================
1960
The Jefferson Image in the American Mind, Merrill D. Peterson, (New York,
1960)
================================================
1960
The Religion of Thomas Jefferson. Henry W. Foote (Boston, Ma. Beacon Press
1960)
===================================
1962
The Jefferson Years: Response by the Press 1800-1809. Jerry W. Knudson,
(University of Virginia Press, 1962)
===============================================
1962
Jefferson on Public Education, Robert M. Healey (1962; rept. Hamden Conn.
1970)
==============================================
1963
Adams and Jefferson: Posterity Must Judge. Adrienne Koch, Chicago, 1963.
==========================================
1963
Thomas Jefferson, Stuart Gerry Brown. 1963; rept. New York, 1966.
====================================
1964
The Jefferson Bible, with the Annotated Commentaries on Religion of Thomas
Jefferson, O.I.A. Roche, ed. With intro by Henry W. Foote (New York, 1964)
=================================================
1966
Adams and Jefferson: the story of a friendship. Norman, John Murray
Allison. University of Oklahoma Press [1966] E322.A6
====================================================
1966
The Family Letters of Thomas Jefferson, Ed. Edwin Morris Betts and James
Bear, Jr. Columbia, Mo., 1966
=============================================
1967
The Writings of Jefferson, Saul K. Padover (E302. J62 1967)
======================================================
1967
Thomas Jefferson Versus Religious Oppression, by Frank Swancara, University
Books N.Y. (1967)
=======================================================
1970
Thomas Jefferson and the New Nation, Merrill D. Peterson (New York, 1970
==================================================
1971
Jefferson. Adrienne Koch, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1971.
==========================================
1974
Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate History. Fawn M. Brodie, New York, 1974.
====================================
1976
Adams and Jefferson : a revolutionary dialogue / Merrill D. Peterson.
Athens : University of Georgia Press, c1976. E321.P47
=====================================================
1976
Thomas Jefferson Papers: (Presidential papers index series) U. S. Library
of Congress, Manuscript Division, Washington, D. C. 1976. Lists by Name of
Correspondent all the Writings of Thomas Jefferson on microfilm on the
Library of Congress.
=====================================================
1977
Thomas Jefferson and His Library: A Study of His Literary Interests and of
the Religious Attitudes Revealed by Relevant Titles in his Library, Charles
B. Sanford, (Hamden, Conn, 1977)
======================================================
1980
A different light ; Jefferson views Henry 1759-1784 / by Thomas Wesley
Redman. Norfolk, Va. : Redman, 1980. LD4331.H47R435
======================================================
1981
The Lost World of Thomas Jefferson, Daniel J. Boorstin, The University of
Chicago Press, (1948, 1981)
========================================
1983
Jefferson's Extracts from the Gospels "The Philosophy of Jefferson" and
"The Life and Morals of Jesus." Dickenson W. Adams, Editor, The Papers of
Thomas Jefferson, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N J (1983)
(Bs2549. J5 J43 1983
======================================================
1984
The Religious Life of Thomas Jefferson, Charles B. Sanford,
(Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 1984).
======================================================
1984
The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Merrill D. Peterson. New York: The
Library of America, (E302 J442 1984) (a list of publications about
Jefferson and his writings)
=======================================================
1987
The Adams-Jefferson Letters: The complete Correspondence Between Thomas
Jefferson and Abigail and John Adams, Edited by Lester J Cappon University
of North Carolina Press, (1959 Renewed 1987)
=============================================
1993
Thomas Jefferson's Abridgement of the Words of Jesus of Nazareth Compiled
While President of the United States, Introduction and copyrighted by Mark
A. Beliles, (1993)
========================================================
1993
The Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Edited by Adrienne Koch
& William Peden, Random House (1993)
=================================================
1993
Thomas Jefferson: Word for Word
Maureen Harrison & Steve Gilbert, Editors. Excellent Books (1993)
=================================================
1996
Sworn on the Altar of God: A Religious Biography of Thomas Jefferson,
Edwin S. Gaustad, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996).
========================================================

SOME ON LINE SOURCES
(This list isn't even close to being all there is out there)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Real Jefferson on Religion by Robert S. Alley
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/alley_18_4.html
=============================================
Thomas Jefferson On Politics & Government
Quotations from the Writings of Thomas Jefferson
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/index.html
=============================================
Thomas Jefferson on Politics & Government
Table of Contents
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeffcont.htm
=============================================
Thomas Jefferson on Politics & Government
52. Freedom of Religion
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1650.htm
=================================================
Thomas Jefferson on Politics & Government
Recommended Collections of Jefferson's Writings
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeffbibl.htm
===============================================
Thomas Jefferson on Politics & Government Other Sites for Information on
Thomas Jefferson
These sites are sources for the writings of Thomas Jefferson in their
original form:
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeffsite.htm
==========================================
A Guide to The Jefferson Papers of the University of Virginia Special
Collections Department, University of Virginia Library
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-ead?id=viu00007&tag=viu00007.sgm&images=/lv6/wo
rkspace/ead&data=/lv6/workspace/ead/done&part=0
=======================================
Thomas Jefferson Online Resources at the University of Virginia
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/
========================================
THE WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON Definitive Edition
CONTAINING HIS AUTOBIOGRAPHY, NOTES ON VIRGINIA, PARLIAMENTARY
MANUAL, OFFICIAL PAPERS, MESSAGES AND ADDRESSES, AND OTHER
WRITINGS, OFFICIAL AND PRIVATE, NOW COLLECTED AND PUBLISHED IN
THEIR ENTIRETY FOR THE FIRST TIME
ALL OF THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS, DEPOSITED IN THE DEPARTMENT OF
STATE AND PUBLISHED IN 1853 BY ORDER OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE OF
CONGRESS
WITH NUMEROUS ILLUSTRATIONS AND A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYTICAL
INDEX
ALBERT ELLERY BERGH
EDITOR
http://www.constitution.org/tj/jeff.htm
==========================================================
The Avalon Project at the Yale Law School
The Papers of Thomas Jefferson
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden/jeffpap.htm
=============================================
The Letters of Thomas Jefferson: 1743-1826
http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jeflxx.htm
==================================================
Thomas Jefferson
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_jefferson/
=============================================
Two outstanding CDs

THE FIRST CD - CD #9
http://www.bank-of-wisdom.com/cddisplay.php?cd=cd9

(1) America Series
The Writings of Thomas Jefferson.
In 20 volumes, Edited by Andrew A. Lipscomb, 1903.

(2) LETTERS AND ADDRESSES
THOMAS JEFFERSON
EDITED BY
WILLIAM B. PARKER
Lecturer in English, Columbia University
JONAS VILES
Assistant Professor of History, University of Missouri

(3) An Introduction to the so called "Jefferson Bible."
The "Jefferson Bible."
Some Religious Quotes
From the Letters of
Thomas Jefferson.
--------------------------------------------------------
THE SECOND CD CD #7
http://www.bank-of-wisdom.com/cddisplay.php?cd=cd7

AMERICA: The Historic Facts.

bucke...@nospam.net

unread,

Dec 4, 2003, 11:31:30 AM12/4/03

idont...@toemail.com (M. Clark) wrote:

>:|You "Got" the idea that I said that Jefferson is mentioned in Murdock
>:|either because you are inclined to read things into material that isn't
>:|there or you don't read stuff carefully - or both! I never said that
>:|Murdock references Jefferson. I indicated that Murdock references
>:|Jefferson's famous church/state writing.

>:|M. Clark, internet liar, troll, and nut case.

I wonder why you refuse to identify this famous church/state writing.
I have asked you to identify it a number of times but to no avail.

There are a number of his writings that might qualify but I find it rather
interesting you refuse to name it or them quote it or them.

One can find famous church/state writings of his in his autobiography, in
his "Notes on Virginia," in a number of his letters, in his letter to the
Danbury Baptist Assoc. in his Statute for Religious Freedom, in some of his
address for public consumption.

Which are you referring to?
===========================================

idont...@toemail.com (M. Clark) wrote:

>:|What I "Got" is that both the Everson and Murdock opinions refer to

>:|Jefferson's famous church/state separation writing,

[me]
Precisely which famous church/state separation writing?

idont...@toemail.com (M. Clark) wrote:
>:|the Everson opinion

>:|not only explicitly attributing the writing

[me]
Precisely which writing?

idont...@toemail.com (M. Clark) wrote:
>:|to Jefferson but using

>:|Jefferson's words in the bottom line of the document.
>:|

>:|M. Clark, internet troll and nutcase

FACTS:

(1) Murdock v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943).
• States the rule for assessing the constitutionality of a fee imposed by
the state upon the exercise of free speech protected by the First Amendment
(2) Thomas Jefferson is not mentioned, by name, anywhere in Murdock
(3) In one of the dissenting opinions part of Jefferson's Statute
for Religious freedom, penned by Jefferson and passed into law by Madison
was mentioned and quoted:
"The Statute of Religious Freedom was passed in Virginia in 1785. The
substance was in paragraph II: '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.' 12 Hening Statutes of Va. 86." Footnote 5, The dissenting
opinions of Mr. Justice REED and Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER in Jones v. City

of Opelika, 63 S.Ct. at page 891 cover these cases also. Murdock v.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

(4) That was the only Jeffersonian reference in the entire opinion,
majority or dissenting.
(5) James Madison, however, is mentioned by name and quoted in one
of the dissents in Murdock.
(6) Nothing that Jefferson ever said, did, or wrote played any role

at all in the holding of Murdock v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 319 U.S.
105 (1943)

Now for Everson:

This is the majority opinion of Everson. In light of all of the sources
cited here in the text and in the footnotes you would be very hard pressed
to prove that anything Jefferson wrote, did, or said formed the primary
foundation for the rule of law which was expressed defining the
Establishment Clause in this opinion. That Jefferson's Statute for
Religious Freedom passed into law by James Madison in Virginia played a
role. No doubt about that. That a portion of his reply to the Danbury
Baptist Assoc. is quoted in this opinion is quite true. However those are
only two items cited from various previous court cases, an array of
historical documents and writings by men other than Jefferson. Madison and
various writings of his are mentioned more, at least one 19th Century
Constitutional Scholar is cited twice, etc.
SORRY DUDE, but your theory has bit the dust as shown by the actual facts.

Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing

330 U.S. 1 (1947)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=330&page=1

[snip]

[Everson opinion]
Second. The New Jersey statute is challenged as a "law respecting an
establishment of religion." The First Amendment, as made applicable to the
states by the Fourteenth, Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, commands
that a state "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . ." These words of the First
Amendment reflected in the minds of early Americans a vivid mental picture
of conditions and practices which they fervently wished to stamp out in
order to preserve liberty for themselves and for their posterity. Doubtless
their goal has not been entirely reached; but so far has the Nation moved
toward it that the expression "law respecting an establishment of religion"
probably does not so vividly remind present-day Americans of the evils,
fears, and political problems that caused that expression to be written
into our Bill of Rights. Whether this New Jersey law is one respecting an
"establishment of religion" requires an understanding of the meaning of
that language, particularly with respect to the imposition of taxes. Once
again, [n4] therefore, it is not inappropriate briefly to review the
background and environment of the period in which that constitutional
language was fashioned and adopted.
FOOTNOTE 4: 4. See Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 162; cf.

Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41, 89, 106.

[FACT: Reference to Jefferson's metaphor "Thus building a wall of
separation between church and state." is made in Reynolds, but that quoting
occurs on page 164, not page 162, thus the above Reynolds cite is not to
Jefferson's metaphor, nor did that metaphor occur in the other case cited
above.]

A large proportion of the early settlers of this country came here from
Europe to escape the bondage of laws which compelled them to support and
attend government-favored churches. The centuries immediately before and
contemporaneous with the colonization of America had been filled with
turmoil, civil strife and persecutions, generated in large part by
established sects determined to [p*9] maintain their absolute political and
religious supremacy. With the power of government supporting them, at
various times and places, Catholics had persecuted Protestants, Protestants
had persecuted Catholics, Protestant sects had persecuted other Protestant
sects, Catholics of one shade of belief had persecuted Catholics of another
shade of belief, and all of these had from time to time persecuted Jews. In
efforts to force loyalty to whatever religious group happened to be on top
and in league with the government of a particular time and place, men and
women had been fined, cast in jail, cruelly tortured, and killed. Among the
offenses for which these punishments had been inflicted were such things as
speaking disrespectfully of the views of ministers of
government-established churches, non-attendance at those churches,
expressions of nonbelief in their doctrines, and failure to pay taxes and
tithes to support them. [n5]
FOOTNOTE #5

[Everson opinion]
These practices of the old world were transplanted to, and began to thrive
in, the soil of the new America. The very charters granted by the English
Crown to the individuals and companies designated to make the laws which
would control the destinies of the colonials authorized these individuals
and companies to erect religious establishments which all, whether
believers or nonbelievers, would be required to support and attend. [n6]
FOOTNOTE #6

6. See e.g., the charter of the colony of Carolina, which gave the grantees
the right of patronage and advowsons of all the churches and chapels . . .
together with licence and power to build and found churches, chapels and
oratories . . . and to cause them to be dedicated and consecrated according
to the ecclesiastical laws of our kingdom of England. Poore, Constitutions
(1878) II, 1390, 1391. That of Maryland gave to the grantee Lord Baltimore
the Patronages, and Advowsons of all Churches which . . . shall happen to
be built, together with Licence and Faculty of erecting and founding
Churches, Chapels, and Places of Worship . . . and of causing the same to
be dedicated and consecrated according to the Ecclesiastical Laws of our
Kingdom of England, with all, and singular such, and as ample lights,
Jurisdictions, Privileges, . . . as any Bishop . . . in our Kingdom of
England, ever . . . hath had. . . . MacDonald, Documentary Source Book of
American History (1934) 31, 33. The Commission of New Hampshire of 1680,
Poore, supra, II, 1277, stated:
And above all things We do by these presents will, require and comand our
said Councill to take all possible care for ye discountenancing of vice and
encouraging of virtue and good living, and that, by such examples ye
infidle may be invited and desire to partake of ye Christian Religion, and
for ye greater ease and satisfaction of ye sd loving subjects in matters of
religion, We do hereby require and comand yt liberty of conscience shall be
allowed unto all protestants; yt such especially as shall be conformable to
ye rites of ye Church of Engd shall be particularly countenanced and
encouraged. See also Pawlet v. Clark, 9 Cranch 292.

[Everson opinion]
An exercise of [p*10] this authority was accompanied by a repetition of
many of the old-world practices and persecutions. Catholics found
themselves hounded and proscribed because of their faith; Quakers who
followed their conscience went to jail; Baptists were peculiarly obnoxious
to certain dominant Protestant sects; men and women of varied faiths who
happened to be in a minority in a particular locality were persecuted
because they steadfastly persisted in worshipping God only as their own
consciences dictated. [n7]
FOOTNOTE #7

7. See, e.g., Semple, Baptists in Virginia (1894); Sweet, Religion in
Colonial America, supra, at 131-152, 322-339.

[Everson opinion]
And all of these dissenters were compelled to pay tithes and taxes [n8] to
support government-sponsored churches whose ministers preached inflammatory
sermons designed to strengthen and consolidate the established faith by
generating a burning hatred against dissenters. [p*11]
FOOTNOTE #8

[Everson opinion]
These practices became so commonplace as to shock the freedom-loving
colonials into a feeling of abhorrence. [n9]
FOOTNOTE #9

9. Madison wrote to a friend in 1774:
That diabolical, hell-conceived principle of persecution rages among some.
. . . This vexes me the worst of anything whatever. There are at this time
in the adjacent country not less than five or six well meaning men in close
jail for publishing their religious sentiments, which in the main
are very orthodox. I have neither patience to hear, talk, or think of
anything relative to this matter; for I have squabbled and scolded, abused
and ridiculed, so long about it to little purpose, that I am without common
patience. So I must beg you to pity me, and pray for liberty
of conscience to all. I Writings of James Madison (1900) 18, 21.

[Everson opinion]
The imposition of taxes to pay ministers' salaries and to build and
maintain churches and church property aroused their indignation. [n10]
FOOTNOTE #10

10. Virginia's resistance to taxation for church support was crystallized
in the famous "Parsons' Cause" argued by Patrick Henry in 1763. For an
account, see Cobb, op. cit. supra, note 5, 108-111.

[Everson opinion]
It was these feelings which found expression in the First Amendment. No one
locality and no one group throughout the Colonies can rightly be given
entire credit for having aroused the sentiment that culminated in adoption
of the Bill of Rights' provisions embracing religious liberty. But
Virginia, where the established church had achieved a dominant influence in
political affairs and where many excesses attracted wide public attention,
provided a great stimulus and able leadership for the movement. The people
there, as elsewhere, reached the conviction that individual religious
liberty could be achieved best under a government which was stripped of all
power to tax, to support, or otherwise to assist any or all religions, or
to interfere with the beliefs of any religious individual or group.

The movement toward this end reached its dramatic climax in Virginia in
1785-86 when the Virginia legislative body was about to renew Virginia's
tax levy for the support of the established church. THOMAS JEFFERSON
[p*12] AND JAMES MADISON led the fight against this tax. Madison wrote his
great Memorial and Remonstrance against the law. [n11]
FOOTNOTE #11

11. II Writings of James Madison, 183.

[Everson opinion]
In it, he eloquently argued that a true religion did not need the support
of law; that no person, either believer or nonbeliever, should be taxed to
support a religious institution of any kind; that the best interest of a
society required that the minds of men always be wholly free, and that
cruel persecutions were the inevitable result of government-established
religions. Madison's Remonstrance received strong support throughout
Virginia, [n12] and the Assembly postponed consideration of the proposed
tax measure until its next session.
FOOTNOTE #12

12. In a recently discovered collection of Madison's papers, Madison
recollected that his Remonstrance met with the approbation of the Baptists,
the Presbyterians, the Quakers, and the few Roman Catholics, universally;
of the Methodists in part, and even of not a few of the Sect formerly
established by law. Madison, Monopolies, Perpetuities, Corporations,
Ecclesiastical Endowments, in Fleet, Madison's "Detached Memorandum," 3
William and Mary Q. (1946) 534, 551, 555.

[Everson opinion]
When the proposal came up for consideration at that session, it not only
died in committee, but the Assembly enacted the famous "Virginia Bill for
Religious Liberty" originally written by THOMAS JEFFERSON. [n13]
FOOTNOTE #13

13. For accounts of background and evolution of the Virginia Bill for
Religious Liberty see, e.g., James, The Struggle for Religious Liberty in
Virginia (1900); Thom, The Struggle for Religious Freedom in Virginia: The
Baptists (1900); Cobb, op. cit. supra, note 5, 74-115; Madison, Monopolies,
Perpetuities Corporations, Ecclesiastical Endowments, op. cit. supra, note
12, 554, 556.

[Everson opinion]
The preamble to that Bill stated, among other things, that

Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it
by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only
to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are [p*13] a departure from
the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body
and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either . . . ; that
to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of
opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical; that even the

forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion
is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to

the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern. . . .

And the statute itself enacted

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. . . . [n14]
FOOTNOTE # 14

14. 12 Hening, Statutes of Virginia (1823) 84; Commager, Documents of
American History (1944) 125.

[Everson opinion]
This Court has previously recognized that the provisions of the First
Amendment, in the drafting and adoption of which Madison and Jefferson
played such leading roles, had the sameobjective, and were intended to
provide the same protection against governmental intrusion onreligious
liberty as the Virginia statute. Reynolds v. United States, supra, at 164;
Watson v.Jones, 13 Wall. 679; Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333, 342. Prior to
the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the First Amendment did not apply
as a restraint against the states. [n15]
FOOTNOTE #15

15. Permoli v. New Orleans, 3 How. 589. Cf. Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Peters
243 .

[Everson opinion]
Most of them did soon provide similar constitutional protections [p*14] for
religious liberty. [n16]
FOOTNOTE #16

[Everson opinion]
But some states persisted for about half a century in imposing restraints
upon the free exercise of religion and in discriminating against particular
religious groups. [n17]
FOOTNOTE #17

[Everson opinion]
In recent years, so far as the provision against the establishment of a
religion is concerned, the question has most frequently arisen in
connection with proposed state aid to church schools and efforts to carry
on religious teachings in the public schools in accordance with the tenets
of a particular sect.
[n18]
FOOTNOTE #18

18. See Note 50 Yale L.J. (1941) 917; see also cases collected 14 L.R.A.
418; 5 A.L.R. 8, 9; 141 A.L.R. 1148.

[Everson opinion]
Some churches have either sought or accepted state financial support for
their schools. Here again, the efforts to obtain state aid or acceptance of
it have not been limited to any one particular faith. [n19]
FOOTNOTE #19

19. See cases collected 14 L.R.A. 418; 5 A.L.R. 879; 141 A.L.R. 1148.

[Everson opinion]
The state courts, in the main, have remained faithful to the language of
their own constitutional provisions designed to protect religious freedom
and to separate religions and governments. Their decisions, however, show
the difficulty in drawing the line between tax legislation which provides
funds for the welfare of the general public and that which is
designed to support institutions which teach religion. [n20]
FOOTNOTE #20

20. Ibid. See also Cooley, op. cit. supra, note 16.

[Everson opinion]
The meaning and scope of the First Amendment, preventing establishment of
religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, in the light of its
history and the evils it [p*15] was designed forever to suppress, have been
several times elaborated by the decisions of this Court prior to the
application of the First Amendment to the states by the Fourteenth. [n21]
FOOTNOTE #21

21. Terrett v. Taylor, 9 Cranch 43; Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679; Davis v.
Beason, 133 U.S. 333; cf. Reynolds v. United States, supra, 162; Reuben
Quick Bear v. Leupp, 210 U.S. 50.

[Everson opinion]
The broad meaning given the Amendment by these earlier cases has been
accepted by this Court in its decisions concerning an individual's
religious freedom rendered since the Fourteenth Amendment was interpreted
to make the prohibitions of the First applicable to state action abridging
religious freedom. [n22]
FOOTNOTE #22

[Everson opinion]
There is every reason to give the same application and broad interpretation
to the "establishment of religion" clause. The interrelation of these
complementary clauses was well summarized in a statement of the Court of
Appeals of South Carolina, [n23] quoted with approval by this Court in
Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679, 730:
FOOTNOTE #23
23. Harmon v. Dreher, Speer's Equity Reports (S.C. 1843), 87, 120.

[Everson opinion]
The structure of our government has, for the preservation of civil liberty,
rescued the temporal institutions from religious interference. On the other
hand, it has secured religious liberty from the invasion of the civil
authority.

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at

least this: neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.
Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer
one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go
to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a
belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for
entertaining [p*16] or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for
church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small,
can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever
they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice
religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or
secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or
groups, and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against

establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of

separation between church and State." Reynolds v. United States, supra, at
164.
[FACT, This is the one and only refercne to THOMAS jEFFERSON'S famous
separation writings if you are referring to the Danbury Baptist Assoc.
Letter which contains that famous metaphor, "Thus building a wall of
separation between church and state."]

[Everson opinion]
We must consider the New Jersey statute in accordance with the foregoing
limitations imposed by the First Amendment. But we must not strike that
state statute down if it is within the State's constitutional power, even
though it approaches the verge of that power. See Interstate Ry. v.
Massachusetts, Holmes, J., supra, at 85, 88. New Jersey cannot,
consistently with the "establishment of religion" clause of the First
Amendment, contribute tax raised funds to the support of an institution
which teaches the tenets and faith of any church. On the other hand, other
language of the amendment commands that New Jersey cannot hamper its
citizens in the free exercise of their own religion. Consequently, it
cannot exclude individual Catholics, Lutherans, Mohammedans, Baptists,
Jews, Methodists, Nonbelievers, Presbyterians, or the members of any other
faith, because of their faith, or lack of it, from receiving the benefits
of public welfare legislation. While we do not mean to intimate that a
state could not provide transportation only to children attending public
schools, we must be careful, in protecting the citizens of New Jersey
against state-established churches, to be sure that we do not inadvertently
prohibit New Jersey from extending its general state law benefits to all
its citizens without regard to their religious belief. [p*17]

Measured by these standards, we cannot say that the First Amendment
prohibits New Jersey from spending tax-raised funds to pay the bus fares of
parochial school pupils as a part of a general program under which it pays
the fares of pupils attending public and other schools. It is undoubtedly
true that children are helped to get to church schools. There is even a
possibility that some of the children might not be sent to the church
schools if the parents were compelled to pay their children's bus fares out
of their own pockets when transportation to a public school would have been
paid for by the State. The same possibility exists where the state requires
a local transit company to provide reduced fares to school children,
including those attending parochial schools, [n24]
FOOTNOTE # 24
24. New Jersey long ago permitted public utilities to charge school
children reduced rates. See Public S. R. Co. v. Public Utility Comm'rs, 81
N. J L. 363, 80 A. 27 (1911); see also Interstate Ry. v. Massachusetts,
supra. The District of Columbia Code requires that the new charter of the
District public transportation company provide a three-cent fare "for
school children . . . going to and from public, parochial, or like schools.
. . ." 47 Stat. 752, 759.

[Everson opinion]
or where a municipally owned transportation system undertakes to carry all
school children free of charge. Moreover, state-paid policemen, detailed to
protect children going to and from church schools from the very real
hazards of traffic, would serve much the same purpose and accomplish much
the same result as state provisions intended to guarantee free
transportation of a kind which the state deems to be best for the school
children's welfare. And parents might refuse to risk their children to the
serious danger of traffic accidents going to and from parochial schools the
approaches to which were not protected by policemen. Similarly, parents
might be reluctant to permit their children to attend schools which the
state had cut off from such general government services as ordinary police
and fire protection, connections for sewage disposal, public [p*18]
highways and sidewalks. Of course, cutting off church schools from these
services so separate and so indisputably marked off from the religious
function would make it far more difficult for the schools to operate. But
such is obviously not the purpose of the First Amendment. That Amendment
requires the state to be a neutral in its relations with groups of
religious believers and nonbelievers; it does not require the state to be
their adversary. State power is no more to be used so as to handicap
religions than it is to favor them.

This Court has said that parents may, in the discharge of their duty under
state compulsory education laws, send their children to a religious, rather
than a public, school if the school meets the secular educational
requirements which the state has power to impose. See Pierce v. Society of
Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 . It appears that these parochial schools meet New
Jersey's requirements. The State contributes no money to the schools. It
does not support them. Its legislation, as applied, does no more than
provide a general program to help parents get their children, regardless of
their religion, safely and expeditiously to and from accredited schools.

The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall
must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest
breach. New Jersey has not breached it here.

Affirmed.

bucke...@nospam.net

unread,

Dec 4, 2003, 1:22:19 PM12/4/03

idont...@toemail.com (M. Clark) wrote:

>:|The bottom line, however, is that interpreting the scope of the
>:|establishment clause to include the States is a BIG LIE. This is
>:|because the Supreme Court has relied heavily on Jefferson's church/state
>:|separation writing in determining the scope of the establishment clause.
>:|But the Court was evidently unaware that Jefferson also wrote that the
>:|1st and 10th Amendments were meant to work together to give the States
>:|the power to address religious issues. See for yourself:

Liar, troll

>:|"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the
>:|Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their
>:|doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the
>:|provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free
>:|exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states
>:|the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to
>:|prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious
>:|discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then
>:|rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority."
>:|--Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:428
>:|
>:|"In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is
>:|placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general
>:|government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the
>:|religious exercises suited to it; but have left them as the Constitution
>:|found them, under the direction and discipline of State or Church
>:|authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies." --Thomas
>:|Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural Address, 1805. ME 3:378
>:|
>:|Also applicable:
>:|
>:|"Our citizens have wisely formed themselves into one nation as to others
>:|and several States as among themselves. To the united nation belong our
>:|external and mutual relations; to each State, severally, the care of our
>:|persons, our property, our reputation and religious freedom." --Thomas
>:|Jefferson: To Rhode Island Assembly, 1801. ME 10:262
>:|-----
>:|
>:|Again, although Jefferson and his famous church/state separation writing
>:|are referenced in SC opinions, nobody has yet shown me the Court was
>:|even aware that the above writings existed.

Nor have you shown they didn't know.
This is so comical. Thomas Jefferson, a man who is one of the most studied
or maybe the most studied man in American history and you are trying to
convince others, with absolutely no evidence at all, that countless
Jefferson scholars, other legal, historical, religious and constitutional
scholars, political scientists, lawyers, law clerks, judges and justices
all were in the dark about these three of four excerpts from addresses and
letters that Jefferson wrote that you have found.

And because, in your totally uninformed opinion, the above people didn't
know about these 3 or 4 excerpts you have found, courts have been
improperly ruling in a vast array of cases since the late 1800s
I say vast array because you are claiming, even if you aren't aware of it,
that any 14th Amendment incorporation would, according to your Jefferson
theory be improper and illegal. Said incorporation of various aspects of
the BORs began in the 1890s

What follows are the source for Jefferson with regards to Everson v Bd of
Ed.

You have made two basic claims over and over again

(1) the excerpts you have posted and re-posted maybe 50 or more times over
the past 3 months or so were unknown views of Jefferson with regards to
church and state and thus were never considered by courts when they make
ruling. Therefore they made incorrect rulings

(2) The courts primarily used Jefferson's views (his earlier views) on
church state to establish the current church state jurisprudence that does
exist.

The facts are, you are wrong on both counts.
As you can see in the following there are very few Jefferson
citations. There are far more Madison cites and a vast array of other cites
given.

The things you excerpt are totally meaningless as far as law is with
regards to the Establishment Clause since 1947.
The law that existed that Jefferson commented on when he wrote those things
you like to quote over and over and over again doesn't exist anymore. It's
dead and gone.

Thus your whole theory is invalid and irrelevant.

Is that going to make a difference, no, because you will continue lying and
trolling. You can't seem to stop yourself.

The fun thing is, very few people are paying you any mind anymore. That is
what happens to trolls sooner or later.

"A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom," enacted by the General
Assembly of Virginia, January 19, 1786.
See 1 Randall, The Life of Thomas Jefferson (1858) 219-220

Randall, The Life of Thomas Jefferson (1858) 220; Padover, Jefferson
(1942) 81

Citations to "Jefferson" refer to The Works of Thomas Jefferson (ed. by
Ford, 1904-1905);
See V Jefferson, 153. I Jefferson, 78.

See I Jefferson, 70-71; XII Jefferson, 447;

Jefferson. Saul K. Padover. New York, 1942. 74.

Padover, Jefferson (1942) c. V

Padover, 80.

0 new messages