Rhymecon McCain. RRR
buckeye
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shaun-jacob-halper/mccains-reverends-right-h_b_100007.html
to see how he is linked with them in 2008. For those who are for
Separation of Church and State he is not good.
David Fisher
Shaun Jacob Halper (Includes U tube video)
McCain's Reverends Right: His Faustian Bargain with Radical Christianity
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shaun-jacob-halper/mccains-reverends-right-h_b_100007.html
[excerpt]
"So I can understand, I can understand why people are upset about this. I
can understand why Americans when viewing these kind of comments, are angry
and upset." -John McCain on the interminable Jeremiah Wright controversy
(April 27, 2008)
John McCain, the great empathizer, is running low on empathy. Quick to
condemn the remarks of Obama's former pastor on behalf of American umbrage,
McCain is reticent about his own knee-deep quagmire of offensive
associational guilt. While Obama has bitterly terminated his unpopular
alliance, John McCain continues to cling indefatigably to his.
All is quiet on the radical Christian front.
McCain has made a deal with the devil-- actually, three devils. Desperate
to unify what is left of his ideological shamble of a Republican Party,
McCain has allied with three of its most bigoted and hateful "spiritual"
personalities: John Hagee, Rod Parsley, and (before his death) Jerry
Falwell.
Though Americans take sincere offense at the vile statements of his
powerful radical Christian allies, John McCain refuses to renounce them or
disassociate himself from these hateful hucksters of hypocrisy.
Many, includingFrank Rich today, have already noted that the mainstream
media has effectively ignored this most unholy of political alliances. As a
result, it is quite likely that many Americans have yet to hear any of
these incendiary statements. The following is a 10 minute synthesis of the
greatest scatological hits of McCain's fundamentalist friends (see YouTube
for myriad full-length footage):
[end excerpt ]
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
buckeye
>:|Rhymecon has noted the condemnation of the RRR by McCain. Access
>:|
From: RhymeCon <bo...@neo.rr.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.atheism,alt.religion.christian,alt.politics.bush,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: Egregious errors in civic textbook
Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 05:39:43 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
RhymeCon wrote:
This may be unethical but I'm posting here a reply to Buckeye's thread
("Rhymecon/ McCain") of about May 5 which is addressed specifically to
me but I can't use that thread because I've apparently used up my
quota of 5 groups.
Well, I for one am opposed to the Separation of Church and State
because it's misleading, confusing, and often interpreted as saying
the exact opposite of what the First Amendment says. The First
Amendment (which, unlike the Sep. of C. & S. is in the U.S.
Constitution) prohibits government from influencing religion but
extends freedom of speech and the press to religion as well as every
other group you can think of. Many people, including the late Assoc.
Justice Hugo Black are of the opinion that churches must not discuss
government. In his infamous Everson opinion of 1947 Hugo said <http://
www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/everson.html> that
"Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly,
participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups
and vice versa". Well, that oddly chosen term "vice versa" means that
Churches can't participate in the affairs of government which is the
duty of all Americans, and can't even say "Don't forget to vote
Tuesday" or in a past era "Outlaw slavery" or "Don't send American
citizens to prison for years just because their parents were Japanese"
or in the present era "Outlaw abortion".
That last example, BTW, illustrates the stupidity of the Christian
Right for their past efforts in convincing the nation that abortion is
a religious issue in the first place. I don't know that anyone has
even found it in the Bible, and some of the most outspoken anti-
abortionists have been atheists! And people of every state were
opposed to Roe v. Wade until the fundamentalists asserted over and
over again that it's impossible to be anti-abortion unless you're a
born-again Christian, and everyone naturally assumed that those
fundies care more about proselyting than they do about fighting
abortion.
And interestingly the founding manifest of the Americans United for
Separation of Church and State set one of its primary goals to
OVERTURN that 1947 Everson decision supported by Justice Hugo Black!
Regards, RhymeCon
http://rhymecon.tripod.com/2/
buckeye
>:|
buckeyeelo posted"
Thu Nov 8, 2007 1:38 pm
RHYMECON'S VICE VERSA PLOY
Message #10703 of 12471
Re: RHYMECON'S VICE VERSA PLOY
--- In HRSe...@yahoogroups.com, "rhymecon" <bob4@...> wrote:
>
> You can dish it out but you can't take it, huh! Since I'm to be
> booted from this site, specifically what lie was told? That Black's
> Everson opinion didn't contain that vice versa but I lied and said
> it did? Or that ye did say it but he was lying?
>
You will be booted from this group because you are a troll and
propagandist.
You have on a regular basis, since you have been here, attacked
Americans United, and attacked the Everson ruling, i.e peddled your
bull shit radical religious right propaganda.
When documentation has been provided showing your propaganda is full
of holes meaning it is incorrect you have ignored that, waited
awhile, came back peddling the same propaganda again as if nothing had
happened previously.
You were challenged time and time again to back up your claims which
you never did. Instead You would resort to silly games which are all
too familiar to anyone who has ever engaged those of your ilk here or
in any other online discussions forum.
This particular thread RHYMECON'S VICE VERSA PLOY laid out hoi you
played that game with regards to vice versa. You mentioned it a
couples time at least over a period of time. At least two, possibly
three people took that claim of yours on. You let some time pass, and
make the same claims again.
That is what trolls do, that is what propagandists do
For you the problem was you came along too late. I have dealt with
clones of you everyday in UseNet Newsgroups since Feb 1995. It is
easy to recognize you and your kind. After awhile I got tired of
yout kind. I don't spend a whole lot of time on them there anymore
I won't tolerate them here.
You add nothing to this group, your contribute nothing of any value to
this group since you only recycle the usual unsubstantiated radical
religious right propaganda.
Oh occasionally you add a wrinkle that seems to be our own personal
invention like the vice versa and the "other" Jefferson letter but
they are so far out and silly that they are laughable.
You, of course can't back them up with any real historical or legal
documentation, because there is none to back them up with. You just
invented them.
You rarely participate here so there will be no loss with you gone.
Now I will be a really nice guy here and I will invite you to join in
the church state discussion that regularly take place in the following
UseNet Newsgroups that I read and post to
Alt.politics.usa.constitution & Alt.education
You can do that in one of two ways. if you have a mail/news reader
program such as agent for example, you can participate directly
if you don't have that you can participate indirectly though google
groups http://groups.google.com/
once there you can do a search for
alt.politics.usa.constitution
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.constitution/topics
the other group I read and reply to sometimes is
alt.education
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.education/topics
I post under the nick
bucke...@nospam.net
I will warn you in advance, UseNet Newsgroups can be wild, rough,
tumble, no holds barred with manners rarely exhibited.
There are a lot of people just like you there posting just like you,
playing the same games just like you.
There are also people just the opposite routinely spanking people just
like.
You will find me there if you want to continue this.
I won't hold my breath to see if you dhow up. I don't expect you
will. I have already told you about UseNet on at least one or two
other occasions suggesting you would have far more fun there then you
could ever have here, since fun seems to be one of the things you seek
in doing this.
> And you've said yourself that his Everson opinion gained importance
> by being the majority rather than the dissenting, opinion.
The above doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. But then, your
entire understanding and knowledge of Everson is seriously flawed
> And how
> did the majority rule? That it was NOT unconstitutional to spend
> public funds to furthur religion, in this case to pay the cost of
> transporting parochial school students (as well as other students)
> to school.
I rest my case, you just displayed your ignorance of Everson again.
buckeye
RHYMECON'S VICE VERSA PLOY
PART I
One way to recognize a THEOCRAT (Radical Religious Rigth type)
propagandist is by observing their posts. In particular pick out the
typical observance of this "rule" Create a lie, state it over and
over again, ignore any and all rebuttals of that lie, contiune to
repeat that lie, saying it often. Sooner or later someone will belive it.
What follows is Rhymecon's application of the above "rule."
Note from the first date to the latest how long he has been peddling
this lie here
Also included in the following are the rebuttals to his lie
PART #1
Message #7465 of 10639
Sun Dec 10, 2006
Re: Support sound sci.ed; was: Stamp out Separation of C. & S. to
protect the 1st am
Humancarol asked Rhymecon
> PS: What does this mean:
> "Separation of Church & State = Freedom of Speech Except for
>Churches"
It comes from my perceived meaning of "Separation of Church and
State" being that if we keep the wall high and unbreachable - that's
not the word Justice Hugo Black used but I'm sleepy and my mind's a
blank - then Government must have no influence on religion, and vice
versa. But the First Amendment doesn't have the vice versa; for
instance it would be bizarre to say the same law that prevents the
government from interfering with religion interferes with religion's
freedom of speech.
I'll try to catch up on the other posts I haven't answered yet but
it's my bedtime. Goodnight and don't let an argument get you riled
up. What fun is a tug-of-war if there's nobody at the other end?
buckeye
PART #2
#7655 of 10639
Re: Americans United Applauds Settlement Of Georgia Lawsuit Over
Thu Dec 28, 2006 10:07 am
--- In HRSe...@yahoogroups.com, "rhymecon" <bob4@> wrote:
"The establishment clause is widely interpreted as prohibitting the
intervention of government in religious matters and vice versa."
Vice versa? Where did that come from? You can read the First
Amendment upside down and backwards and inside out and mirror image
and you still won't find it saying "Churches shall not petition
government or criticize government verbally or in print." But his
opinion is very widely held today, for instance by those who place a
lot of emphasis on SEPARATION of church and state, for separation is
necessarily a bi-directional word meaning if government can't talk
to a denomination then they can't talk to government either. That's
why Christian conservatives can be passionately loyal to the First
Amendment but despise the Separation of Church and State.
buckeye
PART #3
Message #8285 of 10639
Re: Tom Jefferson's Other Letter
Mon Feb 19, 2007 9:09 am
--- In HRSe...@yahoogroups.com, "rhymecon" <bob4@...> wrote:
>In the below opinion, "Neither a state nor the Federal
> Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of
> any religious organizations or groups,and vice versa."
> Oops! The high court was doing fine until they added that "or vice
> versa." Here's the converse of the sentence:"No religious
> organization or group,can, openly or secretly, participate in the
> affairs of any state or the Federal Government." A church can't
> petition the government?
That isn't what it said. Lame try on your part
Let's print it out fully
"Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly,
participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or
groups,and neither religious organizations or groups can, openly or
secretly, participate in the affairs of neither a state nor the
Federal Government "
What it is about the word participate do you not understand?
It doesn't say a word word about not being able to petition the
government.
>A group of church members can't urge other
> members to vote "their" way?
that is actually another matter the matter being tax exempt. However,
once more I have to ask,
What it is about the word participate do you not understand?
>The very amendment that prevents
> Congress from passing laws "establishing religion" is now turned
> around to prevent freedom of speech, and the press, and petitioning
> government, for churches?
False and you are caught once again trying to sell a bill of goods.
What it is about the word participate do you not understand?
To further establish accuracy I present this:
James Madison vetoed an Act of Congress for the very reason under
discussion here
Some of The First Official Meanings Assigned to The Establishment Clause
http://candst.tripod.com/madvetos.htm
Having examined and considered the bill entitled "An act
incorporating the Protestant Episcopal Church in the town of
Alexandria, in the District of Columbia," I now return the bill to the
House of Representatives, in which it originated, with the following
objections:
Because the bill exceeds the rightful authority to which
governments are limited, by the essential distinction between civil
and religious functions, and violates, in particular, the article of
the Constitution of the United States, which declares, that " Congress
shall make no law respecting a religious establishment." . . .
Because the bill vests and said incorporated church an also
authority to provide for the support of the poor, and the education of
poor children of the same; an authority which being altogether
superfluous, if the provision is to be the result of pious charity,
would be a precedent for giving to religious societies, as such, a
legal agency in carrying into effect a public and civil duty.
and
James Madison on Separation of Church and State
Direct references to separation to be found in the writings of James
Madison
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qmadison.htm
----------------------------------------
OCTOBER 1, 1803
Notes for annual message, Oct. 17, 1803: alterations and additions,
etc [1]
(3) after "assure"-are proposed "in due season, and under prudent
arrangements, important aids to our Treasury, as well as," an ample
etc.
Quere: if the two or three succeeding paragraphs be not more adapted
to the separate and subsequent communication, if adopted as above
suggested.
(4) For the first sentence, may be substituted "In the territory
between the Mississippi and the Ohio another valuable acquisition has
been made by a treaty etc."[3.] As it stands, it does not sufficiently
distinguish the nature of the one acquisition from that of the other,
and seems to imply that the acquisition from France was wholly on the
other side of the Mississippi
May it not be as well to omit the detail of the stipulated
considerations, and particularly that of the Roman Catholic Pastor.
The jealousy of some may see in it a principle, not according with the
exemption of Religion from Civil power. In the Indian Treaty it will
be less noticed than in a President's speech.[4.]
FOOTNOTES:
[1.] For TJ's third annual message to Congress, Oct. 17, 1803, see
Ford, VIII, pp. 266-7)
[3.] TI's message announced the acquisition of territory by treaty
from the Kaskaskia Indians; see
Ford, VIII, pp. 269-70.
[4.] TJ accepted JM's suggestion to omit any discussion of Indian
treaty requirements to maintain a Roman Catholic priest, leaving the
stipulations in the treaty to "the competence of both
houses.... as soon as the senate shall have advised its ratification";
see ibid.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, Washington,
Oct. 1, 1803, Notes for annual message, Oct. 17, 1803: alterations and
additions, etc.[1.],
The Republic of Letters, the Correspondence between Thomas Jefferson
and James Madison, 1776-1826, Edited by James Morton Smith, Vol. II,
1790 -1804, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, London, (1995) pp 1297-98)
---------------------------------------------------
JUNE 3, 1811
"To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North
Carolina I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my
objection to the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist
Church at Salem Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always
regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil
Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by
the Constitution of the United States, I could not have other wise
discharged my duty on the
occasion which presented itself"
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina,
June 3, 1811. Letters And Other Writings of James Madison Fourth
President Of The United States In Four Volumes Published By the Order
Of Congress, Vol..II, J. B. Lippincott & Co., Philadelphia, (1865) pp
511-512)
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARCH 2, 1819
"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated
hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its
functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and
the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have
been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from
the State."
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excert of a letter to Robert Walsh from James
Madison. MARCH 2, 1819 Letters and Other writings of James Madison,
in Four Volumes, Published by Order of Congress. VOL. III, J. B.
Lippincott & Co. Philadelphia, (1865), pp 121-126. James Madison on
Religious Liberty, Robert S.Alley, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N.Y.
(1985) pp 82-83)
----------------------------------------------------------
1817-1833
"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and Gov't in
the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by
Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents' already
furnished in their short history"
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excerpt from Madison's Detached Memoranda.
This document was discovered in 1946 among the papers of William
Cabell Rives, a biographer of Madison. Scholars date these
observations in Madison's hand sometime between 1817 and 1832. The
entire document was published by Elizabeth Fleet in the William and
Mary Quarterly of October 1946.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
JULY 10, 1822
"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation
between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I
have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one
has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in
greater purity the less they are mixed together"
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excerpt of letter to Edward Livingston from
James Madison, July 10, 1822. Letters and Other writings of James
Madison, in Four Volumes, Published by Order of Congress. VOL. III, J.
B. Lippincott & Co. Philadelphia, (1865), pp 273-276. James Madison
on Religious Liberty, Robert S.Alley, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N.Y.
(1985) pp 82-83)
--------------------------------------------------------------
SEPTEMBER 1833
"I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible
case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion
and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions
and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one
side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between
them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the
government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity
of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses
on its legal rights by others".
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Letter written by James Madison to Rev. Jasper
Adams, September, 1833.Writings of James Madison, edited by Gaillard
Hunt, [not sure what the volume number is but have enough information
presented here to locate the letter] microform Z1236.L53, pp 484-488. )
*********************************************************************
> I agree with you completely. Jefferson's letter is not a law but is
> often treated as if it were, by people including Hugo Black in
> saying the wall must be kept high and impregnable, etc.
Who cars how people treat it. it isn't law. Black never said nor
implied it was. it was a catchy phrase to end up that actual rule of
law with, nothign more, nothing less. Black used far more actual
historical evidence and previous legal inforamtion than that to state
the rules of law for the Establishment Clause
You are incorrect again
buckeye
PART #4
Message #8257 of 10639
Re: Tom Jefferson's Other Letter
Sat Feb 17, 2007 12:14 pm
Rhymecon wrote:
In the below opinion, "Neither a state nor the Federal
Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of
any religious organizations or groups,and vice versa."
Oops! The high court was doing fine until they added that "or vice
versa." Here's the converse of the sentence:"No religious
organization or group,can, openly or secretly, participate in the
affairs of any state or the Federal Government." A church can't
petition the government? A group of church members can't urge other
members to vote "their" way? The very amendment that prevents
buckeye
PART #6
Message #10448 of 10639
In our email: SNEAKY RHYMECON
Wed Aug 22, 2007 7:13 am
"jmcmeans" had written
> Jim says: That is true to a point, so why doesn't Rhymecon tell us
> what he is for specifically, rather than sloganeering, and clear up
> the confusion.
>
buckeyeelo wrote
What Rhymecon is for is what the Radical Religious right is for.
He is a conservative, not in itself a problem, many conservatives
support church state separation. For example, Former USSC Justice
O'Connor basically supported c&s separation for the most part, Prof
Marci Hamilton, a conservative, seriously supports church state
separation. "Ultra" conservatives do not Rhymecon opposes support
church state separation. Does anything else really need be said?
But I will add a few other comments.
Rhymecon approaches this in the same manner the Radical Religious
Right as a whole approaches this. Attack the Everson v Bd of Ed
ruling. While the Radical Religious Right is not one person, not one
group, there is a certain degree of oneness in how they approach
working towrds their common goals.
The attack on Everson spans the theocratic spectrum, from on high with
USSC Justice Thomas down though most if not every single national face
of the Theocratis, the Radical Religious Right to unknown nobodies
posting in discussion forums across the internet.
There is a certain degree of oneness, togetherness, unified front in
their hatred of Everson and their desire to void it in some manner.
Some of the tactics they use are to claim that separation of church
and state is one way, meaning that the government cannot interfere
with church, religious sects, but does not prevent religious bodies,
churches from being involved with or interferring with government.
Another tactic is to try and turn churches into individual. A church
is not a person. However, as Rhymencon does in his comments, they do
try to paint churches as individual.
He says: Can anyone quote the portions of the Constitution
that authorize government to limit a church's freedoms of speech or
the press or peaceable assembly or petitioning of government?
Only people have freedom of speech. A church does not have that
freedom. Only people have the freedom of peaceable assembly or
petitioning of government. A church does not.
Rhymecon doesn't understand or fails to acknowledge that the
Constitution is a document of enumerated powers, etc.
He has turned the facts around. One doesn't have to show where the
Constitution authorizes the government to limit religion or church in
any manner. It is his responsibility to show where the Constitution
gives religion or churches a seat at the table of government, any
trappings, authority, offices, authority, influence, or even
acknowledgement.
Don't get too hung up on semantics.
The Theocrats also like to point out that the methaphor says church
and state, not religion and state.
However, they overlook James Madison's comments on separation.
He coovers the entire semantic spectrum
James Madison on Separation of Church and State
Direct references to separation to be found in the writings of James
Madison
----------------------------------------
buckeye
PART #7
Message #10631 of 10639
Re: In our email: Separation of Church and State; (Dorlan)
Sat Nov 3, 2007 10:10 am
rhymecon wrote
I don't feel as strongly as he does about the fact that the
words "Separation of C. & S." are not specifically written into the
Constitution. What does it matter as long as the meaning is there?
But it isn't. Article VI and Amendment I specifically constrain
government from interfering in religion and offer no hint that the
reverse is true. But "Separation of C. & S." says the reverse is
true, for "Separation of oil from water" means equally "Separation
of water from oil.
And Hugo (in his Everson opinion) says the reverse is true,
in "Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or
secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations
or groups and vice versa." That vice versa obviously means you can
reverse the nominative from the objective and read it "No religious
organization or group can, openly or secretly, participate in the
affairs of a state or the Federal Government, and vice versa."
Silencing churches from political debate is not only an Article I
violation but the first act of most dictators.
Americans United for C. & S. seem to be a bit ouchy about those two
little words "vice versa," for in that Q. Where is the "separation
of church and state" in the Constitution? they go on to say <Black
wrote "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.'" The wall forbids government to actually
or effectively favor one religion over another, favor religion over
non-religion and vice-versa.>
Could this be AU's attempt to present Black's infamous and
flawed "vice versa" phrase in an innocuous sentence that AU has
simply invented?
RhymeCon
buckeye
PART #5
Message #10430 of 10639
Re: In our email: SNEAKY RHYMECON
Sun Aug 19, 2007 4:42 pm
Rhymecon says: That sadly chosen word "separation" can only work in
both directions; you can't separate the boys from the girls without
separating the girls from the boys. And I've frequently heard that
discussing politics in church violates the separation of church and
state or the pulpit must remain silent on national policy. I've heard
this from the man (and woman) on the street, and from Associate
Justice Hugo Black.
Rhymecon continues: In Justice Hugo Black's famous majority opinion
in Everson vs. Board of Education (1947) we find
Rhymecon: The "establishment of religion" clause of the First
Amendment means at least this: …………No religious organization or group
can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of either a state
or the Federal Government and vice versa.
Rhymecon: Well, he actually wrote it the other way around. But he
added "and vice versa" which clearly means "It's equally true either
way." But what words in Amendment One would even vaguely imply that the
amendment places any kind of limitations on churches? And if it did,
wouldn't the Congress, in passing it, have violated the free exercise
of religion clause of the First Amendment itself?
"jmcmeans" replies
Jim says: Part of Rhymecons problem is that when he says "church"
he means Christianity probably or a specific though unspecified
denomination. Is Mr. Rhymecon actually advocating for the right of
the polygamous offshoot sect of the Mormon church to influence
government and legalize polygamy? Islam? Whirling Dirvishes? I
doubt it. Separation of church and state protects the rights of all
religious groups to worship freely, and the right of non-religious
persons to not worship as they see fit. There is an incredible
diversity of Christian thought and worship style. Allowing the
intermingling of church and state will result in the discrimination
against and persecution of Christians by other Christians, not to
mention discrimination against non-Christians.
Jim continues: It is not clear what Rhymecon is "for" because a lot
depends on his definition of the word "church." In the New
Testament, the word translated as church refers to an assembly of
believers, not the organization or a building. Today, the
word "church" has several meanings. In my Websters Collegiate
Dictionary, church is defined as 1. A building for public worship,
2.Church Service, 3. The organization of Christianity as in a
nation, ecclesiatical power or government, 4. The clerical
profession, 5. The Collective body of Christians, etc., etc
Jim says: Many Christians, and other religions including Buddhism
and Islam, do not believe in the concept of "church" as an
ecclesiastical body. Millions of congregational Christians do not
have a Episcopal form of church government, but are independent
congregations. As such, they would be at a disadvantage in
petitioning government in comparison to the more organized churches.
Should the various types of religions be in competition with each
other in attempting to influence legislatures and Congress in order
to advance their distinct dogmas? Isn't this what the founders
wanted to prevent? Is this what Mr. Rhymecon is advocating? Let the
biggest church prevail, or the most corrupt one?
Jim says: If Christians did their Christian duty as individuals
there would be no need for them to petition government to interfere
in matters of personal morality and behavior. For conservatives to
advocate for government to enforce moral values by force of law is a
violation of both conservative and New Testament Christian
principles.
Rhymecon says: Can anyone quote the portions of the Constitution
that authorize
government to limit a church's freedoms of speech or the press or
peaceable assembly or petitioning of government?
Jim says: Nothing in the constitution limits the right of Christians
to exercise their freedom of speech or press or peaceable assembly
or to petition government. There are laws that do limit non-profit
tax exempt organizations from "lobbying" but those rules apply to
all non-profit organizations on a non-discriminatory basis.
buckeye
>:|
>:|And interestingly the founding manifest of the Americans United for
>:|Separation of Church and State set one of its primary goals to
>:|OVERTURN that 1947 Everson decision supported by Justice Hugo Black!
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ordinary or extraordinary claims require ordinary or extraordinary proof.
If you're going to claim something and especially something outlandish
you're going to need some pretty extraordinary and/or irrefutable proof to
back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's the ordinary or
extraordinary proof for their ordinary or extraordinary claims? If one is
not responding with ordinary or extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the
claim is not worth considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ as Homer@nospam said]
Why is asking for "proof" considered truculence? Do you consider it
truculence for a judge to ask for evidence in a trial. Would you rather
that
people just testified that they believed in the guilt of the suspect?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[as Gray Shockley said:]
Your "opinion" is not an adequate citation.
You forgot your citations.
Or, are your opinions more valid than facts?
You do realize, do you not?, that opinion without substantiation is just
propaganda for those without critical thinking abilities and originate with
those who are attempting to manipulate rather than those who are attempting
to clarify.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The late USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote