|
Anyone care to comment. I will be sure to fwd comments to those who sent
this to our email.
*********************************************************************************
From : dbnowacki [delete]
Sent : Tuesday, November 16, 2004 6:22 PM
To : [me]
Can you tell me where in any of our founding documents there is a call for
"separation between church and state"? Also, when Jefferson mentioned those
words in a letter, wasn't he was talking about not allowing one church to
get too powerful in government? That is what this website concludes:
http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html
I am not trying to be critical, I am seriously inquiring.
**************************************************************
From : Catherine [deleted]
Sent : Wednesday, November 17, 2004 12:50 PM
To : [me]
Subject : comm. manifesto, sep. church & state
Hello.
I looked for the part of the Communist Manifesto that called for a "wall of
separation between church and state, and I could not find it. I was using
copies on the Internet, and now I wonder if it has been"sanitized"? Can you
hep me find it.?
Sincerely,
Richard [deleted]
**********************************************************************
From : Faye [deleted]
Sent : Tuesday, November 16, 2004 9:13 PM
To : [me]
Subject : Other Proofs
I love your website and was so thankful to find it. It seems to me the
greatest proof of the broader wording would include studies of:
1. If religion was not a formal part of drawing up the Constitution in the
first place why did Thomas Jefferson call upon the people to have a day of
prayer and fasting to obtain God's incorporation in the framing of the
Constitution?
2. Even after Thomas Paine had done so much for the Revolution why was he
ostracized from being a signer of the Constitution if it was not because
of his agnostic/atheist beliefs.
3. Wouldn't the greatest proof of the broader interpretation be how the
first Congress, first court, first classrooms, etc. began immediately after
the Constitution was signed.....did they open court, class, congress with
prayer?...etc. If they did then of course they claimed the
Jewish/Christian God as the national God but with that said just know that
we will not haul you into court if you don't believe in our God.
Meaning just as much as they decided on a national flag...did they not show
in every way that the God of the Jews/Christians was to be understood that
they all as a majority of people, by the people believe in this God.
Why is everything changing to accomodate the few rather than the majority
of Americans? Christian rights are undermined in every which way these
days. Our freedoms are being robbed.
I worked for the Dept of Social Services in the 70's and in looking through
adoption papers no child could be adopted by anyone other than someone that
claimed Jesus Christ is Lord and attended church on a regular basis. Girls
continue to give up their children for adoption because they are single and
believe the children would be better off being raised by a mother and
father. Now we are adopting out these children to single parents or gay
partners.
Just disgusted about all this and feeling helpless....like standing by and
letting liberal courts chip away at the fabric of our foundation.
Thanks for letting me vent.
Faye [deleted]
Wilmington, NC
**********************************************************************************
**********************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
This site is a member of the following web rings:
Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
American History WebRing--&--The History Ring
Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring
Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring
**************************************************
|
| |
| |
buckeye-ELO@nospm.net wrote:
Anyone care to comment. I will be sure to fwd comments to those who sent
this to our email.
*********************************************************************************
From : dbnowacki [delete]
Sent : Tuesday, November 16, 2004 6:22 PM
To : [me]
Can you tell me where in any of our founding documents there is a call for
"separation between church and state"? Also, when Jefferson mentioned
those words in a letter, wasn't he was talking about not allowing one
church to get too powerful in government? That is what this website
concludes: http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html
The words are used in a letter from Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists.
Goerge Mason, Jefferson and Monroe were responsible for the
1st amendment. Jefferson had wanted a more explicit and tougher
wall of seperation up front by that was avoided to avoid a battle
with alarm religionists.
Jefferson in his letter to the Rev. Mr Millar when jefferson was president
spelled out what that "wall of seperation" mean in regards to the 1st.
he decl;ared as president, that the 1st prevented him from proclaiming a
day of prayer, wither officially or unofficially, as that would be
unconstitutional.
Since Reagan the US under GOP appointment of a number of conservative
judges has adopted a strict constitutional law theory of original intent,
that is, the original intent of the Constitution are to be given great
weight in legal decisions. So the Danbury and Millar letters take on great
weight due to that legal doctrine.
As does Monroe's Remonstrance and Monroe's letter rueing the early
erosion of sepration of state and church by religionists of his day.
|
| |
| |
wbarwell <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
:|buckeye-ELO@nospm.net wrote:
:|
:|>
:|> Anyone care to comment. I will be sure to fwd comments to those who sent
:|> this to our email.
:|>
:|*********************************************************************************
:|>
:|> From : dbnowacki [delete]
:|> Sent : Tuesday, November 16, 2004 6:22 PM
:|> To : [me]
:|>
:|> Can you tell me where in any of our founding documents there is a call for
:|> "separation between church and state"? Also, when Jefferson mentioned
:|> those words in a letter, wasn't he was talking about not allowing one
:|> church to get too powerful in government? That is what this website
:|> concludes: http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html
:|
:|
:|The words are used in a letter from Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists.
:|
:|Goerge Mason, Jefferson and Monroe were responsible for the
:|1st amendment. Jefferson had wanted a more explicit and tougher
:|wall of seperation up front by that was avoided to avoid a battle
:|with alarm religionists.
James Madison was far more responsible for the BORs and the religious
clauses than Jefferson or Mason and Monroe had no role in it
:|
:|Jefferson in his letter to the Rev. Mr Millar when jefferson was president
:|spelled out what that "wall of seperation" mean in regards to the 1st.
:|he decl;ared as president, that the 1st prevented him from proclaiming a
:|day of prayer, wither officially or unofficially, as that would be
:|unconstitutional.
:|
:|Since Reagan the US under GOP appointment of a number of conservative
:|judges has adopted a strict constitutional law theory of original intent,
:|that is, the original intent of the Constitution are to be given great
:|weight in legal decisions.
Which with regards to the religious clauses are next to impossible to
determine precisely. The only person to write on the topic that was
actually there and the only person to take actual action on the topic via
veto was James Madison. So if original intent is wanted one has to go with
Madison and the religious right and conservative judges/justices by and
large do not go with Madison. They tend to prefer Joseph's Story's
accommodationist thinking over Madison's strict separationist thinking
:\So the Danbury and Millar letters take on great
:|weight due to that legal doctrine.
The Millar letter, has to the best of my knowledge, never been cited in a
court opinion and the Danbury Baptist letter hasn't been cited in a decade
or so.
:|
:|As does Monroe's Remonstrance and Monroe's letter rueing the early
:|erosion of sepration of state and church by religionists of his day.
You have Madison and Monroe mixed up.
What letter of Madison or Monroe are you speaking of now?
|
| |
| |
In our last episode <159np0d05n140dgaff9muqlulopqrjv09g@4ax.com>,
buckeye-ELO lept out of the bushes shouting:
Hello.
I looked for the part of the Communist Manifesto that called for a "wall
of separation between church and state, and I could not find it. I was
using copies on the Internet, and now I wonder if it has been"sanitized"?
Can you hep me find it.?
Sincerely,
Richard [deleted]
There's no help for this one. He looked, didn't find, and so his
conclusion is the documents have been "sanitized."
Wouldn't matter *how many of the writings of Jefferson and Madison you
showed him, he'd claim they were altered in some conspiratorial way...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Being surprised at the fact that the universe
is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being
surprised at how well it fits its hole"
-- Douglas Adams
|
| |
| |
buckeye-ELO@nospm.net wrote:
wbarwell <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
James Madison was far more responsible for the BORs and the religious
clauses than Jefferson or Mason and Monroe had no role in it
You may be right, its been a long time since I read through this stuff in
detail. I do know Jefferson was hot for a far more explicit religous cause
bu that was rejected because it would surely cause a battle and make it hard
to achieve at all. I know Monroe was early on, very concerned with religous
issues.
Which with regards to the religious clauses are next to impossible to
determine precisely.
Not at all. We know the intent. We know Jefferson's letters.
His letter to Millar is very precise. A president is not allowed to
even suggest a day of prayer and fasting. He is to have no part
in religous ritual. That is strictly a private matter not a government
matter, not even suggesting a day of prayer and fastin unofficially is
acceptable.
Since we know Jefferson was one of the fathers of the first, we know
what the intent is and pretty damned precisely too.
You are now being specious.
The only person to write on the topic that was
actually there and the only person to take actual action on the topic via
veto was James Madison. So if original intent is wanted one has to go with
Madison and the religious right and conservative judges/justices by and
large do not go with Madison. They tend to prefer Joseph's Story's
accommodationist thinking over Madison's strict separationist thinking
The Millar letter, has to the best of my knowledge, never been cited in a
court opinion and the Danbury Baptist letter hasn't been cited in a decade
or so.
Well I hope next time this is in court the Millar letter does get cited.
Its about time. Danbury is indeed settled case law.
:|
:|As does Monroe's Remonstrance and Monroe's letter rueing the early
:|erosion of sepration of state and church by religionists of his day.
You have Madison and Monroe mixed up.
What letter of Madison or Monroe are you speaking of now?
Probably, there was a letter in which it was noted that early on,
religous sects were already encroaching on religous matters.
I'd have to go dig the book out of a bunh of boxes to quote it
clearly.
--
Kerry - two medals a silver and bronze star.
Bush? Well they don't give medals
for going AWOL, missing your medical and
getting grounded or falling off of a bar stool.
Kerry - a hero, Bush - a zero
Cheerful Charlie
|
| |
| |
barwell <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
:|buckeye-ELO@nospm.net wrote:
:|
:|> wbarwell <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
:|>
:|>>:|buckeye-ELO@nospm.net wrote:
:|>>:|
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|> Anyone care to comment. I will be sure to fwd comments to those who
:|>>:|> sent this to our email.
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|*********************************************************************************
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|> From : dbnowacki [delete]
:|>>:|> Sent : Tuesday, November 16, 2004 6:22 PM
:|>>:|> To : [me]
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|> Can you tell me where in any of our founding documents there is a call
:|>>:|> for "separation between church and state"? Also, when Jefferson
:|>>:|> mentioned those words in a letter, wasn't he was talking about not
:|>>:|> allowing one church to get too powerful in government? That is what
:|>>:|> this website concludes:
:|>>:|> http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html
:|>>:|
:|>>:|
:|>>:|The words are used in a letter from Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists.
:|>>:|
:|>>:|Goerge Mason, Jefferson and Monroe were responsible for the
:|>>:|1st amendment. Jefferson had wanted a more explicit and tougher
:|>>:|wall of seperation up front by that was avoided to avoid a battle
:|>>:|with alarm religionists.
:|>
:|> James Madison was far more responsible for the BORs and the religious
:|> clauses than Jefferson or Mason and Monroe had no role in it
:|
:|You may be right, its been a long time since I read through this stuff in
:|detail. I do know Jefferson was hot for a far more explicit religous cause
:|bu that was rejected because it would surely cause a battle and make it hard
:|to achieve at all. I know Monroe was early on, very concerned with religous
:|issues.
The primary religious battles in Virginia were fought from 1776 to 1786.
Jefferson was in France from 1784 to 1789.
It was Madison that defeated Henry's bill for the support of teachers of
the Christian religion and got Jefferson's Statute for religious liberty
passed in its stead in 1785.
It was Madison who proposed the 17 or so articles that included three
religious articles to the house of Rep, june 8, 1789 and it was Madison who
fought to get them through Congress. It was Madison who was one of the 6
men who actually WROTE that which we know today as the Establishment and
Free Exercise clause.
Later it was Madison who vetoed 3 acts of Congress because in his opinion
they violated the Establishment Clause.
Bottom line, the father of strict separation and the resulting religious
freedom that brings in this nation today is James Madison
Jefferson gets far more credit than he actually deserves on this particular
topic.
:|>>:|Jefferson in his letter to the Rev. Mr Millar when jefferson was
:|>>:|president spelled out what that "wall of seperation" mean in regards to
:|>>:|the 1st. he decl;ared as president, that the 1st prevented him from
:|>>:|proclaiming a day of prayer, wither officially or unofficially, as that
:|>>:|would be unconstitutional.
:|>>:|
:|>>:|Since Reagan the US under GOP appointment of a number of conservative
:|>>:|judges has adopted a strict constitutional law theory of original
:|>>:|intent, that is, the original intent of the Constitution are to be given
:|>>:|great weight in legal decisions.
:|>
:|> Which with regards to the religious clauses are next to impossible to
:|> determine precisely.
:|
:|Not at all. We know the intent. We know Jefferson's letters.
:|His letter to Millar is very precise. A president is not allowed to
:|even suggest a day of prayer and fasting. He is to have no part
:|in religous ritual. That is strictly a private matter not a government
:|matter, not even suggesting a day of prayer and fastin unofficially is
:|acceptable.
:|Since we know Jefferson was one of the fathers of the first, we know
:|what the intent is and pretty damned precisely too.
Jefferson was not a father of the 3rd amendment (todays 1st Amendment)
Millar's letter has rarely if ever been cited in any court opinion.
Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist was cited in several court
opinions beginning in the late 1800s.
But cited as often or more often have been Madison's
James Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance (June,1785)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/memorial.htm
Excerpts from James Madison's Detached Memoranda (written after 1817)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/detach.htm
Now you might find the following of interest:
* Madison's vetoes: Some of The First Official Meanings Assigned to The
Establishment Clause (1811)
http://candst.tripod.com/madvetos.htm
o Two Views: James Madison's and Joseph Story's
http://candst.tripod.com/joestor2.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
Revisiting Marsh v. Chambers
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/marshchm.htm
o James Madison And National Religion
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/madnational.htm
* Madison's Arguments Against Special Religious Sanction of American
Government
http://candst.tripod.com/madlib.htm
* Excerpts from James Madison's Autobiography
http://candst.tripod.com/madauto.html
Is it true that Madison said "Our future is staked on the 10
commandments?"
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/misq1.htm
Is it true that Madison said "Religion is the foundation of
government?"
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/misq2.htm
Madison's letter to Jasper Adams
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/jasper.htm
*****************************************************************************
Thomas Jefferson did not create church state separation, and it was
embodied in the unamended constitution long before any letter was ever
written by him to the Danbury Baptist.
Study Guide: Separation of Church and State - Indepth
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd0.htm
:|
:|You are now being specious.
I am being accurate.
:| The only person to write on the topic that was
:|> actually there and the only person to take actual action on the topic via
:|> veto was James Madison. So if original intent is wanted one has to go with
:|> Madison and the religious right and conservative judges/justices by and
:|> large do not go with Madison. They tend to prefer Joseph's Story's
:|> accommodationist thinking over Madison's strict separationist thinking
:|>
:|>>:\So the Danbury and Millar letters take on great
:|>>:|weight due to that legal doctrine.
:|>
:|> The Millar letter, has to the best of my knowledge, never been cited in a
:|> court opinion and the Danbury Baptist letter hasn't been cited in a decade
:|> or so.
:|
:|Well I hope next time this is in court the Millar letter does get cited.
:|Its about time. Danbury is indeed settled case law.
Actually it isn't law at all.
The law you refer to is the following:
The Establishment Clause
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/estclause.htm
[excerpt]
THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE
AS DEFINED IN 1947:
____________________________
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.
Neithe
|
| |
| |
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote
There's no help for this one. He looked, didn't find, and so his
conclusion is the documents have been "sanitized."
I almost posted the exact same thing, but thought first to check
how others responded.
The facts are so well documented, and so widely circulated,
that they only way they could need "Help" is if they either
refused anything that didn't confirm their agenda, or are so
stupid that they could never tell a legitimate citation from a
right-wing David Barton fabrication.
|
| |
| |
The primary religious battles in Virginia were fought from 1776 to 1786.
Jefferson was in France from 1784 to 1789.
It was Madison that defeated Henry's bill for the support of teachers of
the Christian religion and got Jefferson's Statute for religious liberty
passed in its stead in 1785.
It was Madison who proposed the 17 or so articles that included three
religious articles to the house of Rep, june 8, 1789 and it was Madison
who
fought to get them through Congress. It was Madison who was one of the 6
men who actually WROTE that which we know today as the Establishment and
Free Exercise clause.
Later it was Madison who vetoed 3 acts of Congress because in his opinion
they violated the Establishment Clause.
Bottom line, the father of strict separation and the resulting religious
freedom that brings in this nation today is James Madison
Big deal Jim, what Madison got and what he wanted are not the same thing. We
can not frame where we go today by what Madison wanted, we must frame where
we go today by what he got. What he got was freedom OF religion, what you
are foisting upon America is freedom FROM religion. I do not know that
Madison wanted freedof FROM religion or freedom OF religion, but what he got
was freedom OF religion.
|
| |
| |
In our last episode <o5ydnV-58_AgfQHcRVn-sw@comcast.com>, JTEM lept out of
the bushes shouting:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote
I almost posted the exact same thing, but thought first to check how
others responded.
The facts are so well documented, and so widely circulated, that they only
way they could need "Help" is if they either refused anything that didn't
confirm their agenda, or are so stupid that they could never tell a
legitimate citation from a right-wing David Barton fabrication.
And increasing number of people in the US no longer even *understand the
concept of "sources." Everything is "opinion" and they aren't even aware
there's anything to be *known. It's merely a matter of shouting louder...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Being surprised at the fact that the universe
is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being
surprised at how well it fits its hole"
-- Douglas Adams
|
| |
| |
"Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote:
:|
:|> The primary religious battles in Virginia were fought from 1776 to 1786.
:|> Jefferson was in France from 1784 to 1789.
:|>
:|> It was Madison that defeated Henry's bill for the support of teachers of
:|> the Christian religion and got Jefferson's Statute for religious liberty
:|> passed in its stead in 1785.
:|>
:|> It was Madison who proposed the 17 or so articles that included three
:|> religious articles to the house of Rep, june 8, 1789 and it was Madison
:|who
:|> fought to get them through Congress. It was Madison who was one of the 6
:|> men who actually WROTE that which we know today as the Establishment and
:|> Free Exercise clause.
:|> Later it was Madison who vetoed 3 acts of Congress because in his opinion
:|> they violated the Establishment Clause.
:|>
:|> Bottom line, the father of strict separation and the resulting religious
:|> freedom that brings in this nation today is James Madison
:|>
:|
:|Big deal Jim, what Madison got and what he wanted are not the same thing.
Actually he got pretty much what he wanted.
The definition of the Establishment Clause is pretty pure Madison and it
still stands. The theocracites haven't done away with it yet, though they
are working hard to try and do away with it.
:|We
:|can not frame where we go today by what Madison wanted,
Then you have just forfeited any right to ever make a
conservative/libertarian sweetheart "original intent" point or argument.
Also you have just given up the right to offer tradition, etc something you
do love to cite as reasons.
What you are advocating is law that changes with the constantly changing
winds of fads, public opinions, etc. Of course, that would create chaos,
but hey who cares, right?
:|we must frame where
:|we go today by what he got. What he got was freedom OF religion, what you
:|are foisting upon America is freedom FROM religion.
Duh, we have been here before dippy, remember?
A Discussion of Freedom of Religion And Freedom From Religion
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/freefrom.htm
:|I do not know
Everyone and anyone who has ever read any of your posts or replies already
knows that.
:|that
:|Madison wanted freedof FROM religion or freedom OF religion, but what he got
:|was freedom OF religion.
There isn't any such concept as freedom of religion without freedom from it
as well.
If you were to ever read his writings you would, well maybe you wouldn't be
intelligent enough, but those who are understand he knew that to have
freedom of you had to also have freedom from.
The was the whole point. There already was freedom of religion for members
of the dominate religion in any given area. Unfortunately that also
applied to dissenters and non religious, they had to attend and support
that religion too. They could not legally preach or practice their own
religion or lack thereof, they had no freedom from the established dominate
religion in their area.
Gee guy, your never thought of that did you?
You don't have a clue what you are talking about. you never have which is
why so many people keep adding to this list:
******************************************
[Jeffy had asked another]
Why do you feel the constant need to be nasty?
To you? Because you are an ignoramus who not only does not check his
facts, but posts endlessly repeating stuff that has been disproven
several times. You also seem to think that your unsupported opinion
is of interest to other people.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier,
**********************************
[To that I add]
Jeff - I don't have a clue what I am talking about, but I am good at
pretending and making it up as I go along so don't confuse me with the
facts, my mind is made up. I stereotype and prejudge. It has always worked
well in the past, why change now - Strickland
**********
Jeffy -- maybe, I heard, but didn't bother to do any independent research,
[ He says it gives him a headache] I like to believe things I want to hear.
I don't like knowing the facts if they aren't going to agree with what I
want to believe and I especially love passing along on the internet, as
facts, things I haven't a clue about their accuracy -- Strickland )
*******************************
[To Jeff Strickland]
I find it "interesting" that you are so incredibly stupid that you totally
missed the citation to the _New York Times_.
You seem to have remembered to take your one-a-day stupid pills.
Gray Shockley
**********
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
I think I see more intolerance.
"Gray Shockley" <gray-87a@cybercoffee.org> wrote in message
Oh, no, no, no.
You neither "think" nor "see".
Is that better?
*******************************
Jeff Strickland wrote:
I find it interesting that when Carol is unable to find the link, you ignore
the request for assistance. But, when I am unable to find the link (and
volunteer twice that I have looked), you jump in with a snide remark that
"the search was not too difficult," as though I am the idiot.
[Joni said]
I'm sorry. I didn't mean to imply you are an idiot. I meant to just
come right out and say you are an idiot.
**************************************
[another time Joni asked Jeffy]
Were you born this stupid or did you take a class?
**************************************
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 14:12:45 -0500, Jeff Strickland wrote
The ACLU is not mentioned in this story, but I believe they have been
mentioned in other stories on the same topic with the same county. Perhaps I
am being a bit reactionary to point my boney fingers at the ACLU,
You don't mind that some of us consider you a pschopathetic liar, do you?
After all, you seem to create "facts" just like your spiritual
great-great-great-great-great grandfather, Richard "I'll Dick You" Cheney.
Are you so [drunk, stoned, Bushed, freaked out] that you even realize how
much - and how many - of your posts are lies?
Are you truly stupid or totally insane?
Gray Shockley
**************************************
[jeffy was asked]
Can you back this up with truthful citations or is this just more of your
"lies manufactured especially for any and all occasions by Jeffie
Strickland"?
Gray Shockley
Vicksburg, MS
**************************************
[jeffy had said]
It is the mother that has custodial and full guardianship
rights of the child. Newdow has no rights relative to this child and her
rearing.
YOU STUPID FUCKING ILLITERATE MORON, READ WHAT YOU AGREED
WITH EARLIER! THE COURTS HAVE RULED THAT NONCUSTODIAL
PARENTS **DO** HAVE RIGHTS TO THE RELIGIOUS UPBRINGING
OF THEIR CHILDREN, YOU BRAIN-DAMAGED TURD!
Merlyn LeRoy
========================================================
:|
:|
:|
:|
|
| |
| |
or "Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net>
I see jeffy backs away from this one
"Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote:
:|The Founding Fathers certainly did seek to keep government and church
:|separated, right after they opened Congress with a prayer.
Yes they did son.
Here is the evidence:
BTW, they never "opened" Congress with a prayer:
Congress was already in session, had been for close to a month before hand.
The Record
According to the Annals of Congress, the historical record in this matter
is as follows:
* April 7, 1789, the Senate assembled. "Among the business of that day
was a committee was formed to take under consideration the manner of
electing Chaplains."
* April 9, 1789, It was reported in the House that the Senate had
formed said committee and that the Senate wished the House to create a
similar committee to confer with their committee.
* April 15, 1789, The Senate reported, "That two Chaplains of different
denominations be appointed to Congress, for the present session, the Senate
to appoint one, and give notice thereof to the House of Representatives,
who shall thereupon appoint the other,, which Chaplains shall commence
their services in the Houses that appoint them, but shall interchange
weekly. Which was also accepted."
* April 17, 1789, the House echoed the Senate report, "That two
Chaplains, of different denominations, be appointed to Congress for the
present session; the Senate to appoint one, and give notice thereof to the
House of Representatives, who shall thereupon appoint the other -- which
Chaplains shall commence their services in the Houses that appoint them,
but shall interchange weekly."
* April 25, 1789, the Chaplain was elected and appointed by the Senate.
* May 1, 1789, the Chaplain was elected and appointed by the House.
* April 30, 1789, the Chaplain actually began official duties (hence
were working that job) in the Senate.
* May 6, 1789, the Chaplain actually began official duties (hence was
working that job) in the House.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now for just some of the other evidence:
Study Guide: Separation of Church and State - Indepth
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd0.htm
and
****************************************************************************************
President Washington explained the reason for only one reference to
religion in the Constitution: "I am persuaded, you will permit me to
observe that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little
political direction. To this consideration we ought to ascribe [credit] the
absence of any regulation [law], respecting religion, from the Magna-Charta
[Constitution] of our country" (George Washington, 1789, Papers,
Presidential Series, 4:274).
**************************************************************************************
Congressman James Madison objected to the 1790 census identifying
citizens as ministers because, he said, "the general government is
proscribed [prohibited] from the interfering, in any manner whatsoever, in
matters respecting religion; and it may be thought to do this, in
ascertaining who, and who are not, ministers of the gospel" (February 2,
1790, Papers, 13:16).
***********************************************************************************
Just over ten years after ratification of the First Amendment, President
Jefferson, in his letter of reply to the Baptists of Connecticut, who were
still being forced to pay taxes for support of other churches in
Connecticut, wrote, "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" (January 1, 1802, Andrew A. Lipscomb, ed., Writings, 16:281).
***********************************************************************************
"And may I not be allowed to . . . read in the character of the American
people, in their devotion to true liberty and to the Constitution which is
its palladium [protection], . . . a Government which watches over . . . the
equal interdict [prohibition] against encroachments [trespasses] and
compacts [agreements] between religion and the state" (Madison, December
3,1816, Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1:
579-580).
**********************************************************************************
"It was the Universal opinion of the Century [1600s] preceding the last
[1700s], that Civil Govt could not stand without the prop of a Religious
establishment, & that the Xn religion itself, would perish if not supported
by a legal provision for its Clergy. The experience of Virginia
conspicuously corroborates [supports with evidence] the disproof of both
opinions. The Civil Govt . . . functions with complete success; Whilst the
number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion of
the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the
Church from the State" (Madison, March 2, 1819, Writings, 8:431-432).
*********************************************************************************
"Religion . . . enjoys in this country . . . complete separation from the
political concerns of the General Government" (Andrew Jackson, 1832,
Correspondence, 4:447).
***********************************************************************************
"Perfect religious freedom [was] established in the United States, without
any control exercised by the civil authority over spiritual concerns. In
consequence of this, every denomination was . . . without . . .
disadvantages arising from the connection of religion with secular policy"
(Bird Wilson, 1839, Memior of the Life of the Right Reverend William White,
88).
*************************************************************************************
"The divorce between Church and State ought to be absolute. It ought to be
so absolute that no Church property anywhere, in any state, or in the
nation, should be exempt from equal taxation; for if you exempt the
property of any church organization, to that extent you impose a tax upon
the whole community" (James A. Garfield, 1874, Congressional Record, 2:
5384).
*******************************************************************************
On September 30, 1975 President Ulysses S.Grant delivered a speech before
the convention of the Society of the Army of the Tennessee meeting in Des
Moines, Iowa.
"Now, the centennial year of our national existence, I believe, is a good
time to begin the work of strengthening the foundations of the structure
commenced by our patriotic forefathers one hundred years ago at Lexington.
Let us all labor to add all needful guarantees for the security of free
thought, free speech, a free press, pure morals, unfettered religious
sentiments, and of equal rights and privileges to all men irrespective of
nationality, color, or religion. Encourage free schools, and resolve that
not one dollar, appropriated for their support, shall be appropriated to
the support of any sectarian schools. Resolve that neither the State nor
Nation, nor both combined shall support institutions of learning other
|
| |
| |
alison@cox.net wrote:
wbarwell <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
The primary religious battles in Virginia were fought from 1776 to 1786.
Jefferson was in France from 1784 to 1789.
Which has what to do with Jefferson's efforts on the Bill of Rights or his
letters to Millar or the Danbury Baptists?
Jefferson was not initally for a new Constitution, he did wish when
that was unavoidable to have a bill of rights.
His University he started initailly offered no theology courses.
His letters long show hostility to established churches, even to
the myths of Christianity.
As president, his claims as to the meaning of the 1st amendment
are rather clear.
It was Madison that defeated Henry's bill for the support of teachers of
the Christian religion and got Jefferson's Statute for religious liberty
passed in its stead in 1785.
Yes.
It was Madison who proposed the 17 or so articles that included three
religious articles to the house of Rep, june 8, 1789 and it was Madison
who fought to get them through Congress. It was Madison who was one of the
6 men who actually WROTE that which we know today as the Establishment and
Free Exercise clause.
Later it was Madison who vetoed 3 acts of Congress because in his opinion
they violated the Establishment Clause.
Bottom line, the father of strict separation and the resulting religious
freedom that brings in this nation today is James Madison
Jefferson gets far more credit than he actually deserves on this
particular topic.
Madison is one of the good guys, but the question was, where did
the phrase wall of seperation come from and what did it mean?
And we do know Jefferson was involved in the Bill of rights and the 1st,
which was the subject. He used the phrase in an explicit manner.
The question then is, what did the 1st mean in light of modern day
doctrines of original intent? Who's intent? Since Jefferson was one
of those who insisted on the 1st and later interpreted it as a sitting
president, his opinion must be given great regard.
Jefferson was not a father of the 3rd amendment (todays 1st Amendment)
No, he was. He most certainly wanted a far more explict and stronger one
than we got.
Millar's letter has rarely if ever been cited in any court opinion.
Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist was cited in several court
opinions beginning in the late 1800s.
But cited as often or more often have been Madison's
James Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance (June,1785)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/memorial.htm
Excerpts from James Madison's Detached Memoranda (written after 1817)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/detach.htm
Now you might find the following of interest:
* Madison's vetoes: Some of The First Official Meanings Assigned to
The
Establishment Clause (1811)
http://candst.tripod.com/madvetos.htm
o Two Views: James Madison's and Joseph Story's
http://candst.tripod.com/joestor2.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
Revisiting Marsh v. Chambers
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/marshchm.htm
o James Madison And National Religion
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/madnational.htm
* Madison's Arguments Against Special Religious Sanction of American
Government
http://candst.tripod.com/madlib.htm
* Excerpts from James Madison's Autobiography
http://candst.tripod.com/madauto.html
Is it true that Madison said "Our future is staked on the 10
commandments?"
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/misq1.htm
Is it true that Madison said "Religion is the foundation of
government?"
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/misq2.htm
Madison's letter to Jasper Adams
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/jasper.htm
*****************************************************************************
Thomas Jefferson did not create church state separation, and it was
embodied in the unamended constitution long before any letter was ever
written by him to the Danbury Baptist.
Study Guide: Separation of Church and State - Indept
|
| |
| |
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 17:59:03 -0600, Jeff Strickland wrote:
Big deal Jim, what Madison got and what he wanted are not the same thing. We
can not frame where we go today by what Madison wanted, we must frame where
we go today by what he got. What he got was freedom OF religion, what you
are foisting upon America is freedom FROM religion. I do not know that
Madison wanted freedof FROM religion or freedom OF religion, but what he got
was freedom OF religion.
Yup.
And I choose to exercise my freedom of religion in any way I want.
Which is - unless I choose to discuss it - none of your business.
I, also, choose [or not] to exercise my freedom of speech, my freedom of the
press, my freedom of assembly, my freedom of voting and any and all other
freedoms, explicit and implicit (i.e., "right" to privacy, also called the
"right to be left alone").
You are not going to tell me what to believe, what to read, how to assemble
and when or any other freedom earned for us by the Continental Army and
maintained through hundreds of thousands of deaths to preserve it.
You may be too young to remember the civil rights struggles of thr 60's and
70's but the sight of those "fine, white Chriistians" sicing dogs on people,
the bodies recovered and the lives ruined and the deaths at the hands of
these "fine, white Chriistians" is a very large reminder to a lot of us.
The only way that you can use to control those who care for freedom iss you
and yourin killing us.
But I have as much faith in the religious right of this century as I did in
the religious right, i.e., the Ku Klux Klans (the symbol of which is ?), the
White Citizens Council and the John Birch Society, of the last century.
God will bless you for killing and castrating His enemies and you, of course,
know exactly who to kill and how.
One of the main identifiers of these self-anointed "religious rightists" is
that just about all of you seem to be nothing but thugs.
And, again, the "religious right" shows nothing whatsoever of the teachings
of Jesus. It appears to be more of a "political stance" which has nothing
whatsoever to do with people trying to be "Christ-like".
You prolly need to get together with (one of the other members of the
"religious reich") and give that Jesus guy some harsh introduction to the
politics of the 21st Century. Just think, you, too, can fill the shoes of
Saint Paul the Latent.
From what you and your little cuddlebunnies are saying, I don't think that
"religious reich" is an exaggeration. And it probably doesn't even need
quotes around it.
Another thing many of you and your cuddlebunnies have in common: I wouldn't
turn my back on a single one of you.
Gray Shockley
-------------------------------------------------
Pain is evitable but suffering is optional.
|
| |
| |
barwell <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
:|>>:|>>:|buckeye-ELO@nospm.net wrote:
:|> The primary religious battles in Virginia were fought from 1776 to 1786.
:|> Jefferson was in France from 1784 to 1789.
:|
:|Which has what to do with Jefferson's efforts on the Bill of Rights or his
:|letters to Millar or the Danbury Baptists?
Jefferson did not have anything to do with the BORs beyond, WITH A NUMBER
OF OTHERS OF THAT TIME PERIOD, suggesting via a letter to Madison that the
Constitution needed a BORs.
Jefferson's letter to Millar has played little if any role in American
legal or historical history.
Jefferson's letter to the Danbury has been cited in courts but it is not
"law" as such.
Truth be told, Jefferson, the man, was not the main shaker and mover with
regards to church and state separation. James Madison was.
:|Jefferson was not initally for a new Constitution, he did wish when
:|that was unavoidable to have a bill of rights.
he wrote a letter to Madison saying he felt the Constitution needed a BORs.
A number of other people said the dame things to Madison. Madison changed
from not feeling a BORs was needed to promising to submit articles to
Congress only when it became clear the Constitution might not be ratified
in a couple key states. It was a political move to steal the thunder from
the anti-rats (anti-federalists)
:|His University he started initailly offered no theology courses.
I am well aware of Jefferson's contributions and very familiar with his
university and its history.
:|His letters long show hostility to established churches, even to
:|the myths of Christianity.
Which mens what in context of your original claim?
:|As president, his claims as to the meaning of the 1st amendment
:|are rather clear.
It was clear long before he became president as the evidence I gave URLs
for shows.
:|> It was Madison that defeated Henry's bill for the support of teachers of
:|> the Christian religion and got Jefferson's Statute for religious liberty
:|> passed in its stead in 1785.
:|
:|Yes.
:|
:|
:|> It was Madison who proposed the 17 or so articles that included three
:|> religious articles to the house of Rep, june 8, 1789 and it was Madison
:|> who fought to get them through Congress. It was Madison who was one of the
:|> 6 men who actually WROTE that which we know today as the Establishment and
:|> Free Exercise clause.
:|> Later it was Madison who vetoed 3 acts of Congress because in his opinion
:|> they violated the Establishment Clause.
:|>
:|> Bottom line, the father of strict separation and the resulting religious
:|> freedom that brings in this nation today is James Madison
:|>
:|> Jefferson gets far more credit than he actually deserves on this
:|> particular topic.
:|
:|Madison is one of the good guys, but the question was, where did
:|the phrase wall of seperation come from and what did it mean?
Phrase is rather incidental. The phrase is a metaphor, a short cut to label
a label principle, a concept that was embodied in the unamended
constitution.
Church and state was separated via the separation clause of the unamended
constitution and Jefferson had nothing to do with that.
:|And we do know Jefferson was involved in the Bill of rights and the 1st,
:|which was the subject. He used the phrase in an explicit manner.
Jefferson was not involved with the BORs.
:|The question then is, what did the 1st mean in light of modern day
:|doctrines of original intent? Who's intent? Since Jefferson was one
:|of those who insisted on the 1st and later interpreted it as a sitting
:|president, his opinion must be given great regard.
FIRST SEPARATION AND THE UNAMENDED CONSTITUTION:
"They divided power among the three branches of the Federal
Government, through Federal state separation of power, through Church state
separation of power, a division which is recognized in the Constitution
even before the First Amendment in the Religious Test Oath Clause."
Excerpt from The federalist Society For Law and Public Policy Studies.
Charitable Choice, Remarks of Professor Marci Hamilton
http://www.fed-soc.org/Publications/practicegroupnewsletters/PG%20Links/charchoicemh.htm
************************************************************************************
1789
Representative Thomas Tucker on Church and State, September 1789
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/basic2a.htm
********************************************************************************************
Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses Only Reinforced Separation of
Church and State:
No Power to Congress Over Religion. The Separation Clause, Article
IV Paragraph III
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/art4piii.htm
********************************************************************************************
No Power to Congress over Religion: The "Elastic Clause" and the
1st Amendment
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/nopower.htm
[EXCERPT]
A. The Constitution and the First Amendment
Strictly speaking, the American experiment of freedom and separation was
not established in the First Amendment command that "Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof." That experiment had been launched four years earlier,
when the founders of the republic carefully withheld from the new national
government any power to deal with religion. As Madison said, the national
government had no "jurisdiction" over religion or any "shadow of right to
intermeddle" with it.(1)
The First Amendment, then, did not take away or abridge any power of the
national government; its intent was to make express the absence of power.
The historian George Bancroft, in a letter to Philip Schaff, stated:
Congress from the beginning was as much without the power to make a law
respecting the establishment of religion as it is now that the amendment
has passed."(2)
Charles Beard made the same point:
The Constitution does not confer upon the Federal government any power
whatever to deal with religion in any form or manner. . . . The First
Amendment merely confirms the intention of the framers.(3)
FOOTNOTES
(1) June 12, 1788, James Madison speaking to the delegates (speaking
against Patrick Henry's assertions) at the Virginia Constitutional
ratifying convention, as reported on page 330, The Debates of the Several
State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution 1787, Vol.
III by Jonathan Elliot. J B Lippincott Company 1888)
(2) Schaff, Philip, "Church and State in the United States," Papers of the
American Historical Society, 1888, p. 137.
(3) Beard, Charles, The Republic, New York, Viking Press 1944, pp. 166,
178.
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Church State and Freedom, Leo Pfeffer Boston, The
Beacon Press (1953) p 114
***********************************************************************************
February 2, 1790
. . . a very interesting debate in the House of Representatives,
February 2, 1790, when the question of the Federal census was under
consideration. The bill, as reported, provided for the enumeration of
farmers, mechanics, and other groups, but did not include the learned
professions. Theodore Sedgwick of Massachusetts (1746-1813) suggested that
it should "specify every class of citizens, into which the commun
|
| |
| |
"Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote:
Actually he got pretty much what he wanted.
The definition of the Establishment Clause is pretty pure Madison and it
still stands. The theocracites haven't done away with it yet, though they
are working hard to try and do away with it.
Then you have just forfeited any right to ever make a
conservative/libertarian sweetheart "original intent" point or argument.
Also you have just given up the right to offer tradition, etc something
you
do love to cite as reasons.
I do not believe that is entirely correct. If we frame our discussion sin
what the Constitution actually gives us instead of what ONE of the framers
sought, then we will get a result that is closer to the truth.
This particular topic was particularly fought back and forth to arrive at
the precise wording that we have to work with today. We should not only look
at where Madison stood on the issue, but also where the other framers also
stood. We should look not only at what Madison wanted, but at what the
others wanted as well. There was considerable discussion on the topic, and
to limit the discussion to where Madison stood is to overlook where the
others stood, and since this was a negotiation, it would serve us well to
look at the entirety of the discussion, not just one man's view.
I buy into the entire Original Intent argument, but the intent was that of
all of the colonies (states), not just the view of Madison. Madison clearly
wanted a strict separation, if we believe your analysis, but the other
states wanted a certain amount of religion, or at least they recognized that
religion played a role even if government should be kept from the religious
arena.
There is a significant difference in the recognition of religion and passing
laws that establish religion. You ignore this difference in your arguments.
What you are advocating is law that changes with the constantly changing
winds of fads, public opinions, etc. Of course, that would create chaos,
but hey who cares, right?
I am advocating no such thing, indeed I think it is you that is advocating a
constantly moving target for the law to dial in on.
:|we must frame where
:|we go today by what he got. What he got was freedom OF religion, what
you
:|are foisting upon America is freedom FROM religion.
Duh, we have been here before dippy, remember?
Why do you @$#* up a perfectly good discussion with personal attacks. Fuck
off. You just made the trash bin, again. Yes, we went down this road before,
and you lost. You are advocating Freedom FROM Religion, the right is Freedom
OF Religion. Big difference.
You have no interest in a discussion with those that disagree with you. Only
an asshole would revert to personal attacks in light of reasonable argument
against his position.
FOR THE RECORD
My personal attacks are in reaction to yours. I am more than willing to
discuss opposing views with you or anybody else, but when yo revert to name
calling, I have no time for you . Fuck you, asshole.
|
| |
| |
Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|
:|<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
:|> Then you have just forfeited any right to ever make a
:|> conservative/libertarian sweetheart "original intent" point or argument.
:|> Also you have just given up the right to offer tradition, etc something
:|> you
:|> do love to cite as reasons.
:|>
:|
:|I do not believe
I don't care what you believe. Very few others in these newsgroups care
what you believe. What you believe is irrelevant.
:}that is entirely correct.
Show with evidence, with cites that it isn't correct.
:\If we frame our discussion sin
:|what the Constitution actually gives us instead of what ONE of the framers
:|sought, then we will get a result that is closer to the truth.
Show with evidence, with cites that it will be closer to the truth.
:|This particular topic was particularly fought back and forth to arrive at
:|the precise wording that we have to work with today.
Show with evidence, with cites that it was fought back and forth to arrive
at the precise wording we have today.
Show with evidence, with cites the language was precise.
Explain this:
With regards to words, here:
********************************************
SEPTEMBER 13, 1789 (Amendments)
Your letter of the 8th Ulto. has lain long unanswered because I have been
absorbed about the Amendments to the Constitution. They have at length
passed the Senate, with difficulty, after being much mutilated and
enfeebled---
Source: Richard Henry Lee to Francis Lightfoot Lee, 13 September 1789,
Morristown National Historical Park, New Jersey.
______________________________________________________
SEPTEMBER 15, 1789 (Amendments)
The Amendments too have been amended by the Senate, & many In our house,
Mr. Madison, in particular, thinks, that they have lost much of their
sedative Virtue by the alteration. A contest on this subject between the
two houses would be very disagreeable.
Source: Fisher Ames to Caleb Strong, 15 September 1789, Thompson Autograph
Collection, Hartford Seminary Foundation.
______________________________________________________
SEPTEMBER 27, 1789 (Amendments)
My third letter to you on the 14th. inst. will satisfy you how little is to
be expected from Congress that shall be any ways satisfactory on the
subject of Amendments.. . . The English language has been carefully culled
to find words feeble in their Nature or doubtful in their meaning!
Source: Richard Henry Lee to Patrick Henry, 27 September 1789,
Miscellaneous Manuscripts, DLC.
______________________________________________________
SEPTEMBER 29, 1789 (Amendments)
With respect to amendments matters have turned out exactly as I apprehended
from the extraordy doctrine of playing the after game: the lower house sent
up amendments which held out a safeguard to personal liberty in a great
many instances, but this disgusted the Senate, and though we made every
exertion to save them, they are so mutilated & gutted that in fact they are
good for nothing, & I believe as many others do, that they will do more
harm than benefit:
Source: William Grayson to Patrick Henry, 29 September 1789, Patrick Henry
Papers, DLC.
_______________________________________________________
OCTOBER 2, 1789 (Amendments)
You will find our Amendments to the Constitution calculated merely to
amuse, or rather to deceive.
Source: Thomas Tudor Tucker to St. George Tucker, 2 October 1789, Roberts
Autograph Collection, Haverford College, Haverford, Pennsylvania
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
FINALLY:
4. Constitutions are written in very broad terms. There are, of course,
exceptions to this, particularly with respect to the constitutions of local
governments. In the main, however, a common characteristic of
constitutional provisions is their broad language. How would you interpret
the following section?
Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or of the right of the people to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances.
How many words in this provision do you not understand? What is an
"establishment?" If the school board requires a "moment of silence" at the
beginning of each day, is the school board establishing a religion? What
does "abridging" mean? If a government official leaks secret documents to
the press, and the government tries to sue the press to prevent the
publication of the documents, has the "freedom" of the press been abridged?
If the people have a right to "assemble," could the government pass a law
prohibiting all gatherings of three or more people at any place within one
thousand yards of the White House gates? The questions arising from the
interpretation of constitutional law are endless; tens of thousands of
court opinions exist on questions such as these. The broader the language,
the more ambiguous it is, and therefore the greater the need for
interpretation.
***********************************************************************************
AND THIS:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=smvmb09srmckoc260g3vh18mtuh7kta7ai%404ax.com
[EXCERPT]
Joseph Story v. James Madison from the grave
It can be said that the majority court in Marsh as well as the modern ultra
conservatives, some moderate conservatives, religious right,
accommodationmists and non-preferentialist speak the Joseph Story position
while the dissenting opinions in Marsh as well as some moderates and
moderate conservatives, liberals and strict separationists of all walks
speak the Madison position.
________________
While all of the opinions in Marsh are deficient to some degree as
a matter of historical analysis, it is clear in a policy sense that the
differences between the majority and the dissenters is but a revival of
the old debate between the Storyites and the Madisonians. . . .
**********************************************************************************
:|We should not only look
:|at where Madison stood on the issue,
I sympathize with you. To look to Madison spells bad new for your position.
:|but also where the other framers also
:|stood.
Ok,. People can read what those other framers said just as soon as you find
something that the people actually involved with the framing of the
religious clauses of the BORs and provide it for us to consider.
HINT: You won't find anything because the only person to write on the
subject and actually take action on the subject that was actually there was
Madison.
:|We should look not only at what Madison wanted, but at what the
:|others wanted as well.
See above Idiot
The USSC defined the Establishment Clause in Everson v. Bd of Ed and here
is what they used to define it:
ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE: [This is based on Madison's view]
In spite of all that Rehnquist and his buddies have done this remains the
definition for the Establishment Clause: (The no aid portion has been
battered, to be sure, but as Locke v Davey shows, it still has some bite
left in it. Nyquist also remains good law)
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:
|
| |
| |
|
