Re: The words 'separation of church and state' not in the Constitution - only if you're an idiot.
zencycle
the complete ignorance of the social conservatives is mind boggling
> http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090701/OPIN...
>
> John E. Stewart III, Asheville • July 1, 2009 01:03 PM
>
> Hogwash. The words “separation of church in state” do not appear in the
> U.S. Constitution. They won't be found in the Bill of Rights, either.
Not the specific verbiage, but certainly the line "Congress shall make
no law respecting an establishment of religion" in the first amendment
to the constitution qualifies, as does the formal ban of religious
qualification for federally elected officials in Article VI, section
3, "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any
office or public trust under the United States."
> If those with an agenda don't have the facts on their side maybe they have
> the wrong side.
Clearly, john is on the wrong side then.
> Our government cannot encroach on our religious rights or force anyone to
> accept a religion of its choosing.
that _is_ the establishment clause, you moron.
> Believe what you wish, live as you wish
> and don't interfere with others doing the same. It is a concept the left
> just can't quite grasp.
Really? So how is attempting to pass a discriminatory amendment based
purely on religious grounds OK, if the government is to stay out of
it?
Really john, you're not making a lot of sense here.
> John E. Stewart III, Asheville
>
> ***************************************************************
> You are invited to check out the following:
>
> The Rise of the Theocratic States of Americahttp://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
>
> American Theocrats - Past and Presenthttp://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
>
> The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and Statehttp://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&Statehttp://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)
> . . .
> ****************************************************************James Veverka wrote:
>
> One of the ways to counter the attack on American Constitutional principles
> by the religious right is to address their revisionism, misinformation and
> distortions.
>
> ****************************************************************
> 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
>
> ****************************************************************
Christopher A. Lee
<zenc...@bikerider.com> wrote:
>On Jul 2, 7:32�am, buckeye <buckeye...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>the complete ignorance of the social conservatives is mind boggling
>
>> http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090701/OPIN...
>>
>> John E. Stewart III, Asheville � July 1, 2009 01:03 PM
>>
>> Hogwash. The words �separation of church in state� do not appear in the
>> U.S. Constitution. They won't be found in the Bill of Rights, either.
>
>Not the specific verbiage, but certainly the line "Congress shall make
>no law respecting an establishment of religion" in the first amendment
>to the constitution qualifies, as does the formal ban of religious
>qualification for federally elected officials in Article VI, section
>3, "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any
>office or public trust under the United States."
The words are too long for the dumbed down rednecks.
Basically it's all about the rights of the individual vs the tyranny
of the majority.
>> If those with an agenda don't have the facts on their side maybe they have
>> the wrong side.
>
>Clearly, john is on the wrong side then.
>
>> Our government cannot encroach on our religious rights or force anyone to
>> accept a religion of its choosing.
>
>that _is_ the establishment clause, you moron.
Their religion says everybody else has to practice it, which overrides
everybody else's right not to - whether it's practicing a different
one or nor none at all.
They've got god on their side so nobody else has a say init.
If they're prevented they imagine this abridges their own freedom of
religion.
They don't understand the evils of imposed religion which had let to
wars and strife in both Europe and the original North American
colonies. To anybody living in the 1700s it was recent history, and
older people had lived through it.
Don't they teach history any more?
>> Believe what you wish, live as you wish
>> and don't interfere with others doing the same. It is a concept the left
>> just can't quite grasp.
A projected falsehood. And the "left" in the USA are so few as to be
insignificant.
It's a standard dishonesty by the religious conservatives to label
everybody they don't like as "the left" as if they were a monolithic
whole with everybody having exactly the same position.
Even the position is an invented lie that projects their own
behaviour.
It's the religious conservatives who can't live and let live, who
teach our kids creationism, who force them to pray in school, who
legislate what passes for their morality, etc.
>Really? So how is attempting to pass a discriminatory amendment based
>purely on religious grounds OK, if the government is to stay out of
>it?
Because they're exempt.
>Really john, you're not making a lot of sense here.
Nope.