Discussion:
STAMP OUT SEPARATION - of church and state *****
(too old to reply)
buckeye
2008-08-01 10:28:15 UTC
Permalink
RhymeCon," the "Rhyming Conservative

STAMP OUT SEPARATION - of church and state
http://rhymecon.tripod.com/2/

A real 100% radical right (along the lines of Ken) nitcase

***************************************************************
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
****************************************************************
Knuje
2008-08-01 15:36:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by buckeye
RhymeCon," the "Rhyming Conservative
STAMP OUT SEPARATION - of church and statehttp://rhymecon.tripod.com/2/
A real 100% radical right (along the lines of Ken) nitcase
***************************************************************
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)
. . .
****************************************************************
"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.
*****************************************************************
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
Shall we make Pandeism the official state religion, then?
Free Lunch
2008-08-01 15:47:06 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 08:36:45 -0700 (PDT), Knuje
Post by Knuje
Post by buckeye
RhymeCon," the "Rhyming Conservative
STAMP OUT SEPARATION - of church and statehttp://rhymecon.tripod.com/2/
A real 100% radical right (along the lines of Ken) nitcase
***************************************************************
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)
. . .
****************************************************************
"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.
*****************************************************************
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
Shall we make Pandeism the official state religion, then?
If we elect McCain, we can make Panderism the official state religion.
unknown
2008-08-01 18:43:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Free Lunch
On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 08:36:45 -0700 (PDT), Knuje
Post by Knuje
Post by buckeye
RhymeCon," the "Rhyming Conservative
STAMP OUT SEPARATION - of church and statehttp://rhymecon.tripod.com/2/
A real 100% radical right (along the lines of Ken) nitcase
***************************************************************
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)
. . .
****************************************************************
"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.
*****************************************************************
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
Shall we make Pandeism the official state religion, then?
If we elect McCain, we can make Panderism the official state religion.
And Depends the official underwear.
Knuje
2008-08-01 21:55:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Free Lunch
On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 08:36:45 -0700 (PDT), Knuje
Post by buckeye
RhymeCon," the "Rhyming Conservative
STAMP OUT SEPARATION - of church and statehttp://rhymecon.tripod.com/2/
A real 100% radical right (along the lines of Ken) nitcase
***************************************************************
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)
. . .
****************************************************************
"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.
*****************************************************************
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
Shall we makePandeismthe official state religion, then?
If we elect McCain, we can make Panderism the official state religion.
But McCain is a devout Christian, as long as that will get him some
votes....
SkyEyes
2008-08-01 22:09:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Knuje
Shall we make Pandeism the official state religion, then?
Nope. Pastafarianism. I plan to have a worship service tonight, with
a little Farfalle with vodka cream sauce and roast chicken.

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
RhymeCon
2008-08-03 12:01:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Knuje
Shall we make Pandeism the official state religion, then?
Nope.  Pastafarianism.  I plan to have a worship service tonight, with
a little Farfalle with vodka cream sauce and roast chicken.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
RhymeCon
2008-08-03 12:34:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Knuje
Shall we make Pandeism the official state religion, then?
Nope.  Pastafarianism.  I plan to have a worship service tonight, with
a little Farfalle with vodka cream sauce and roast chicken.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
There is just plain something screwy about Google Groups. My computer
needed replacing, so it isn't the fault of my hardware. I joined this
group so I could reply to Buckeye's above post. I enter my comments.
But when I try to SEND them the program sends something else in my
name. His comment that I was trying to address reads
Quote:
RhymeCon, "the "Rhyming Conservative"
STAMP OUT SEPARATION - of church and state
http://rhymecon.tripod.com/2/
A real 100% radical right (along the lines of Ken) nitcase
-End of Quote

I haven't a clue who Ken is but how does he reach his conclusions
about RhymeCon knowing zero about RhymeCon?
Now "RhymeCon" is a "radical right"? Sounds like he's been demoted by
an "R" since Buckeye used to call him an RRR, or Rolicking Religious
Rightist (known only by the psychic, Buckeye, who instictively can
tell at a distance whether someone is a fundamentlist theocrat - and
a LIAR too, by the way). Actually RhymeCon is not even close to a
fundamentalist, while although a regular church-goer he thinks of
himself as a seeker, not a teacher, and has a pretty strong feeling
that Christians who get to heaven might be surprised to find many non-
Christians there, with a few atheists included, people who served
Christ by showing compassion to "the least of these his
brethern." (Mat. 25)

And RhymeCon is not even close to a theocrat, either; He has NO desire
to see his church, or any religion, running the government, and
believes implicitly in the 1st amendment's non-establishment of
religion and also the freedom of religion. And he despises the
metaphor "Separation of Church State" not because he wants to see
government influencing religion but because he wants to see churches
having just as much right to influence government as every other
organization. That stupid metaphor would (if it were a law) work in
both directions (Assoc. Justice Hugo Black said so) while the 1st
amendment religion clauses clearly create a one-way street.

RhymeCon
http://rhymecon.tripod.com
http://rhymecon.tripod.com/2/
N***@Click.com
2008-08-03 15:42:01 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 05:34:35 -0700 (PDT), RhymeCon
Post by RhymeCon
And he despises the
metaphor "Separation of Church State" not because he wants to see
government influencing religion but because he wants to see churches
having just as much right to influence government as every other
organization.
They can---but not at taxpayer expense

They are (for the most part), exempt from taxation.

THerefore, to use a tax free status to advocate
for/against policy from the entity (government/people)
is prohibited.

Every individual belonging to any church can, in the
public venue, express themselves as any other citizen.

Want your church to enjoy that "same right"-----Then
give up tax free status.
RhymeCon
2008-08-03 23:34:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by N***@Click.com
On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 05:34:35 -0700 (PDT), RhymeCon
Post by RhymeCon
And he despises the
metaphor "Separation of Church State" not because he wants to see
government influencing religion but because he wants to see churches
having just as much right to influence government as every other
organization.
They can---but not at taxpayer expense
They are (for the most part), exempt from taxation.
THerefore, to use a  tax free status to advocate
for/against policy from the entity (government/people)
is prohibited.
Every individual belonging to any church can, in the
public venue, express themselves as any other citizen.
Want your church to enjoy that "same right"-----Then
give up tax free status.
Dear Nick,

I'm sorry but I believe you're mistaken. Churches are governed by the
same IRS rules as everybody else, in fact they're discriminated
AGAINST at one point. First, they're non-profit organizations, like
ACLU and Americans United for Sep. of Ch & St. and American Cancer
Society and thousands of other non prifits that are termed 501(c)(3)'s
by the IRS. And I want to furnish links to verify everything I say so
I hope you won't mind if I link you to an article on my own site,
entitled "Churches MAY Intervene in Government," It already has links
to the appropriate portions of the IRS Code.
<A href=http://rhymecon.tripod.com/2/index.html#religion>(I'm afraid
you might have to copy that into your browser; I don't know how to do
it in Vista. Sorry.)
All 501(c)(3)'s are tax exempt and cotributions to them are tax-exempt
too. They are NOT prohibitted from getting involved in all
governmental matters, ACLU and AU being spectacular examples, but must
abide by two rules: (1) they must not get involved in a candidate's
political campaign and (2) they must not lobby, (endorse or oppose
specific legislation) to a substantial degree. And what does
"substantial" mean? I don't know, and no one else does either. The IRS
Code of 1934 has never defined it. But recently Congress enacted a
definition of how much a 501(c)(3) can spend for lobbying and it's
based on a percentage of their total budget and can be as high as one
million per year, but that's only if they sign the "h" election which
commits them to keeping certain records etc. And it applies to all
501(c)(3)'s except one type: churches. That's the point at which
churches are discriminated against.
So that's about it. If you'd like, I'd be happy to discuss it with you
furthur.

RymeCon
N***@Click.com
2008-08-04 00:32:15 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 16:34:29 -0700 (PDT), RhymeCon
Post by RhymeCon
Post by N***@Click.com
On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 05:34:35 -0700 (PDT), RhymeCon
Post by RhymeCon
And he despises the
metaphor "Separation of Church State" not because he wants to see
government influencing religion but because he wants to see churches
having just as much right to influence government as every other
organization.
They can---but not at taxpayer expense
They are (for the most part), exempt from taxation.
THerefore, to use a =A0tax free status to advocate
for/against policy from the entity (government/people)
is prohibited.
Every individual belonging to any church can, in the
public venue, express themselves as any other citizen.
Want your church to enjoy that "same right"-----Then
give up tax free status.
Dear Nick,
I'm sorry but I believe you're mistaken. Churches are governed by the
same IRS rules as everybody else
No, they're not.
4125 Dead
2008-08-04 01:44:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by N***@Click.com
On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 16:34:29 -0700 (PDT), RhymeCon
Post by RhymeCon
Post by N***@Click.com
On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 05:34:35 -0700 (PDT), RhymeCon
Post by RhymeCon
And he despises the
metaphor "Separation of Church State" not because he wants to see
government influencing religion but because he wants to see churches
having just as much right to influence government as every other
organization.
They can---but not at taxpayer expense
They are (for the most part), exempt from taxation.
THerefore, to use a =A0tax free status to advocate
for/against policy from the entity (government/people)
is prohibited.
Every individual belonging to any church can, in the
public venue, express themselves as any other citizen.
Want your church to enjoy that "same right"-----Then
give up tax free status.
Dear Nick,
I'm sorry but I believe you're mistaken. Churches are governed by the
same IRS rules as everybody else
No, they're not.
Indeed.

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:d1b8k190T4gJ:www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf+IRS+religious+exemption&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a
--

What do you call a Republican with a conscience?

An ex-Republican.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827 (From Yang, AthD (h.c)

"Prosperity and peace are in the balance," -- Putsch, not admitting that he's against both

Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001

Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
Zepps_News-***@yahoogroups.com
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essays-***@yahoogroups.com
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
RhymeCon
2008-08-06 16:07:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by 4125 Dead
Post by N***@Click.com
On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 16:34:29 -0700 (PDT), RhymeCon
Post by RhymeCon
Post by N***@Click.com
On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 05:34:35 -0700 (PDT), RhymeCon
Post by RhymeCon
And he despises the
metaphor "Separation of Church State" not because he wants to see
government influencing religion but because he wants to see churches
having just as much right to influence government as every other
organization.
They can---but not at taxpayer expense
They are (for the most part), exempt from taxation.
THerefore, to use a =A0tax free status to advocate
for/against policy from the entity (government/people)
is prohibited.
Every individual belonging to any church can, in the
public venue, express themselves as any other citizen.
Want your church to enjoy that "same right"-----Then
give up tax free status.
Dear Nick,
I'm sorry but I believe you're mistaken. Churches are governed by the
same IRS rules as everybody else
No, they're not.
Indeed.
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:d1b8k190T4gJ:www.irs.gov/pub/irs...
--
What do you call a Republican with a conscience?
An ex-Republican.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827(From Yang, AthD (h.c)
"Prosperity and peace are in the balance," -- Putsch, not admitting that he's against both
Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001      
Not dead, in jail, or a slave?  Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Dear Dead,
In reply to "Not dead, in jail, or a slave?"
Well, for whatever it is that you've done to prevent my being dead, I
am eternally grateful.
As for "in jail," a hundred thousand American citizens did spend four
years in jail for the unspeakable crime of having the wrong ancestors:
Japanese. It was promoted by California's Attorney General (later to
become the ultra- liberal Chief Justice of the Earl Warren Supreme
Court), who needed to boost his political career by getting the Japs
out of California. And they were imprisoned by executive order of the
dean of the liberals, Franklin D. Roosevelt. (I'm sorry I can't say
there was violent opposition from the Conservatives but I can only
state facts).
As for "slave" it's interesting that the slave states were in the
south which was nicknamed for years afterward as the Solid South,"
meaning "solidly Democratic." And some churches opposed slavery, which
meant they were bad churches because they were violating the
"Constitutional Separation of Church and State." But most churches,
especially in the south, were good churches and supported it.

Rhymecon
RhymeCon
2008-08-06 20:13:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by RhymeCon
Post by 4125 Dead
Post by N***@Click.com
On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 16:34:29 -0700 (PDT), RhymeCon
Post by RhymeCon
Post by N***@Click.com
On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 05:34:35 -0700 (PDT), RhymeCon
Post by RhymeCon
And he despises the
metaphor "Separation of Church State" not because he wants to see
government influencing religion but because he wants to see churches
having just as much right to influence government as every other
organization.
They can---but not at taxpayer expense
They are (for the most part), exempt from taxation.
THerefore, to use a =A0tax free status to advocate
for/against policy from the entity (government/people)
is prohibited.
Every individual belonging to any church can, in the
public venue, express themselves as any other citizen.
Want your church to enjoy that "same right"-----Then
give up tax free status.
Dear Nick,
I'm sorry but I believe you're mistaken. Churches are governed by the
same IRS rules as everybody else
No, they're not.
Indeed.
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:d1b8k190T4gJ:www.irs.gov/pub/irs...
--
What do you call a Republican with a conscience?
An ex-Republican.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827(FromYang, AthD (h.c)
"Prosperity and peace are in the balance," -- Putsch, not admitting that he's against both
Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001      
Not dead, in jail, or a slave?  Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Dear Dead,
In reply to "Not dead, in jail, or a slave?"
Well, for whatever it is that you've done to prevent my being dead, I
am eternally grateful.
As for "in jail," a hundred thousand American citizens did spend four
Japanese. It was promoted by California's Attorney General (later to
become the ultra- liberal Chief Justice of the Earl Warren Supreme
Court), who needed to boost his political career by getting the Japs
out of California. And they were imprisoned by executive order of the
dean of the liberals, Franklin D. Roosevelt. (I'm sorry I can't say
there was violent opposition from the Conservatives but I can only
state facts).
As for "slave" it's interesting that the slave states were in the
south which was nicknamed for years afterward as the Solid South,"
meaning "solidly Democratic." And some churches opposed slavery, which
meant they were bad churches because they were violating the
"Constitutional Separation of Church and State." But most churches,
especially in the south, were good churches and supported it.
Rhymecon- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Dear Cary Kittrell,
I'll resist the temptation to pick up my dictionary and write my own
definition: "metaphor: (noun) An approximately worded expression
giving a rough idea of something worth remembering."
Our brand new President Thomas Jefferson replied to a letter from a
group of Baptists, something about "Congratulations, Tom. But we're
getting the shaft from our state government. They have their own
established Denomination and it Ain't the Baptists. Please Help!" They
knew, and he knew, that the first ammendment prohibitted the feds but
not the stated from establishing religion, but just to show his heart
was in the right place he reminded them the American people, in
enacting the Constitution, had freed religion from Federal control be
erecting a "wall of separation between church and state," even though
it was a moot question regarding the state government.

Fast forward to 1947. The U.S. Supreme Court was hearing a case in
which a taxpayer named Everson complained that his county was giving
aid to Catholic schools by giving free transportation to and from
schools to ALL students. The 14th ammendment had now extended that
protection of religion from government to state governments as well.
Assoc. Justice Hugo Black wrote the majority opinion and he also wrote
a rule for all future cases, and he revived that old "Wall of
Separation" quote and said that Government could could not aid
religion with public funds, no exceptions. All jutices voted to
approve that rule.

Only one problem. The majority, including Hugo Black, voted to approve
the township spending public funds to help students get to Catholic
schools. Thus it appears that Hugo himself wasn't compleletely sold on
his own majority decision. And it appears that way for the Americans
United for Separation of Church and State, for AU's writer Rob Boston
wrote an article in AU's website listing the Everson decision being
one of several that AU wants to see overturned. I have it in my
website, headlined "AU agrees with Pat Robertson."

Thus "Separation of Church and State" can hardly be called a law or a
precise statement of a priciple. It's a metaphor.

As far as my needing help in basic website design I'm not a geek but
go ahead. I'm open to all constructive suggestions.

RhymeCon
http://rhymecon.tripod.com/2/
ZerkonX
2008-08-07 11:16:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by RhymeCon
Thus "Separation of Church and State" can hardly be called a law or a
precise statement of a priciple. It's a metaphor.
It seems to me "Separation of Church and State" is not metaphor, "wall"
on the other hand is. So a "wall of separation" is metaphorical but the
concept behind the metaphor, "Separation of Church and State", is not.
So, this is a precise statement of principle.

He is a fast running deer. A metaphor. "He runs fast" is not.
RhymeCon
2008-08-08 19:06:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by ZerkonX
Post by RhymeCon
Thus "Separation of Church and State" can hardly be called a law or a
precise statement of a priciple. It's a metaphor.
It seems to me "Separation of Church and State" is not metaphor, "wall"
on the other hand is. So a "wall of separation" is metaphorical but the
concept behind the metaphor, "Separation of Church and State", is not.
So, this is a precise statement of principle.
He is a fast running deer. A metaphor. "He runs fast" is not.
Dear ZirconX

O.K., and thanks for the reply. But how precise a statement of
principle is it?

I’d think that the precise meaning of “Separation of Church and State”
would be that a church, or religion in general, must not attempt to
influence governmental action. But in our representative democracy
isn’t it everybody’s job to let our representatives know how we think,
especially if we think very strongly about it?

One hundred fifty years ago some churches opposed slavery. Were they
in violation of the law? Or at least the law that is defined by that
precise statement of principle?

And what about that group of criminals, the Quakers? They were the
only denomination that actively took the side of the American citizens
of Japanese descent whom the government was locking up in the most
outrageous civil rights offense (after slavery) ever committed by the
U.S. Government. Were they violating that same law?

And what law ever passed anywhere says that churches don’t have all
the rights guaranteed by law of every other organized group?

And what about the First Amendment? If “Separation of Church and
State” really is a precise statement of some law that tells churches
what they can’t do, wouldn’t the law be unconstitutional? After all
the non-establishment clause of the First Amendment begins “Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”

But wait! Suppose someone comes along and says “You’re wrong!
Separation of Church and State does NOT mean protecting Government
from Churches. It means protecting churches from governmental
interference. I’d agree with him 100%. Wouldn’t you?

From all of this I’d conclude that “Separation of Church and State”
is an ambiguous, confusing, impossible-to-define jumble of words. In
other words, a metaphor.

RhymeCon
http://rhymecon.tripod.com/2/
buckeye
2008-08-09 12:40:25 UTC
Permalink
:|> > Thus "Separation of Church and State" can hardly be called a law or a
:|> > precise statement of a priciple. It's a metaphor.
:|>
:|> It seems to me "Separation of Church and State" is not metaphor, "wall"
:|> on the other hand is. So a "wall of separation" is metaphorical but the
:|> concept behind the metaphor, "Separation of Church and State", is not.
:|> So, this is a precise statement of principle.
:|>
:|> He is a fast running deer. A metaphor. "He runs fast" is not.
:|
:|Dear ZirconX
:|
:|O.K., and thanks for the reply. But how precise a statement of
:|principle is it?
:|
:|I’d think that the precise meaning of “Separation of Church and State”
:|would be that a church, or religion in general, must not attempt to
:|influence governmental action.
Your definition is incorrect


But don't take my word for it. Let's see what "an expert" had to say on
the matter.

Madison's vetoes: Some of The First Official Meanings Assigned to The
Establishment Clause
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/madvetos.htm

and

************************************************************
James Madison on Separation of Church and State
Direct references to separation to be found in the writings of James
Madison


----------------------------------------
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. )
*********************************************************************
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/jaspltrs.htm
[excerpt]

September, 1833

Montpelier September 1833. private

Dear Sir,

I received in due time, the printed copy of your convention sermon on
the relation of Christianity to civil government, with a manuscript request
of my opinion on the subject.

There appears to be in the nature of man, what ensures his belief in an
invisible cause of his present existence, & an anticipation of his future
existence. Hence the propensities & susceptibilities, in the case of
religion, which, with a few doubtful or individual exceptions, have
prevailed throughout the world.

Waiving the rights of conscience, not included in the surrender implied
by the social state, & more or less invaded by all Religious
establishments, the simple question to be decided, is whether a support of
the best & purest religion, the Christian Religion itself, ought not, so
far at least as pecuniary means are involved, to be provided for by the
Government, rather than be left to the voluntary provisions of those who
profess it. And on this question, experience will be an admitted umpire the
more adequate as the connexion between government & Religion, has existed
in such various degrees & forms, & now can be compared with examples where
the connexion has been entirely dissolved.

In the papal system, Government & Religion are in a manner
consolidated; & that is found to be the worst of Governments.

In most of the governments of the old world, the legal establishment of
a particular religion without any, or with very little toleration of
others, makes a part [pact?] of the political & civil organization; & there
are few of the most enlightened judges who will maintain that the system
has been favourable either to Religion or to government.

Until Holland ventured on the experiment of combining a liberal
toleration, with the establishment of a particular creed, it was taken for
granted that an exclusive establishment was essential, and notwithstanding
the light thrown on the subject by that experiment, the prevailing opinion
in Europe, England not excepted, has been, that Religion could not be
preserved without the support of Government, nor Government be supported
without an established Religion, that there must be at least an alliance of
some sort between them.

It remained for North America to bring the great & interesting subject
to a fair, & finally, to a decisive test.

In the colonial state of this country, there were five examples, Rhode
Island, New Jersey Pennsylvania & Delaware, & the greater part of New York,
where there were no religious establishments, the support of Religion being
left to the voluntary associations & contributions of individuals; &
certainly the religious condition of those colonies, will well bear a
comparison, with that where establishments existed.

As it may be suggested, that experiments made in colonies more or less
under the controul of a foreign government had not the full scope necessary
to display their tendency, it is fortunate that the appeal can now be made
to their effects, under a compleat exemption from any such controul.

It is true that the New England States have not discontinued
establishments of Religion formed under very peculiar circumstances; but
they have by successive relaxations, advanced towards the prevailing
example; & without any evidence of disadvantage, either to Religion or to
good government.

And if we turn to the Southern States where there was previous to the
Declaration of Independence, a legal provision for the support of Religion;
& since that event, a surrender of it to a spontaneous support of the
people, it may be said that the difference amounts nearly to a contrast, in
the greater purity & industry of the pastors & in the greater devotion of
their flocks, in the latter period than in the former. In Virginia, the
contrast is particularly striking to those whose memories can make the
comparison.

It will not be denied that causes other than the abolition of the legal
establishment of Religion are to be taken into view, in accounting for the
change in the religious character of the community. But the existing
character, distinguished as it is by its religious features, & the lapse of
time, now more than fifty years, since the legal support of Religion was
withdrawn, sufficiently prove, that it does not need the support of
Government. And it will scarcely be contended that government has suffered
by the exemption of Religion from its cognizance, or its pecuniary aid.

The apprehension of some seems to be, that Religion left entirely to
itself, may run into extravagances injurious both to Religion & social
order; but besides the question whether the interference of Government in
any form, would not be more likely to increase than controul the tendency,
it is a safe calculation that in this, as in other cases of excessive
excitement, reason will gradually regain its ascendency. Great excitements
are less apt to be permanent than to vibrate to the opposite extreme.

Under another aspect of the subject, there may be less danger that
Religion, if left to itself, will suffer from a failure of the pecuniary
support applicable to it, than that an omission of the public authorities,
to limit the duration of the charters to Religious corporations, & the
amount of property acquirable by them, may lead to an injurious
accumulation of wealth from the lavish donations & bequests prompted by a
pious zeal or by an atoning remorse. Some monitory examples have already
appeared.

Whilst I thus frankly express my view of the subject presented in your
sermon, I must do you the justice to observe, that you have very ably
maintained yours. 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 & the Civil authority, with such distinctness, as to avoid
collisions & 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 an entire abstinence of the
Government from interference, in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of
preserving public order, & protecting each sect against trespasses on its
legal rights by others.

I owe you, Sir, an apology for the delay in complying with the request
of my opinion on the subject discussed in your sermon, if not also for the
brevity, & it may be thought, crudeness of the opinion itself. I must rest
the apology on my great age now in its 83' year, with more than the
ordinary infirmities, & especially on the effect of a chronic rheumatism,
combined with both, which makes my hands & fingers, as averse to the pen as
they are awkward in the use of it.

Be pleased to accept, Sir, a tender of my cordial & respectful
salutations.

James Madison.

[Adams's Notes, pages 12-15]
[end excerpt]

*******************************************************
followed by

Some Thoughts on Religion and Law
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/bthot-lr.htm"


***************************************************************
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
2008-08-09 12:40:46 UTC
Permalink
:|Dear ZirconX
:|
:|O.K., and thanks for the reply. But how precise a statement of
:|principle is it?
:|
:|I’d think that the precise meaning of “Separation of Church and State”
:|would be that a church, or religion in general, must not attempt to
:|influence governmental action. But in our representative democracy
:|isn’t it everybody’s job to let our representatives know how we think,
:|especially if we think very strongly about it?
:|
:|One hundred fifty years ago some churches opposed slavery. Were they
:|in violation of the law? Or at least the law that is defined by that
:|precise statement of principle?
:|
:|And what about that group of criminals, the Quakers? They were the
:|only denomination that actively took the side of the American citizens
:|of Japanese descent whom the government was locking up in the most
:|outrageous civil rights offense (after slavery) ever committed by the
:|U.S. Government. Were they violating that same law?
:|
:|And what law ever passed anywhere says that churches don’t have all
:|the rights guaranteed by law of every other organized group?
:|
:|And what about the First Amendment? If “Separation of Church and
:|State” really is a precise statement of some law that tells churches
:|what they can’t do, wouldn’t the law be unconstitutional? After all
:|the non-establishment clause of the First Amendment begins “Congress
:|shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”
:|
:|But wait! Suppose someone comes along and says “You’re wrong!
:|Separation of Church and State does NOT mean protecting Government
:|from Churches. It means protecting churches from governmental
:|interference. I’d agree with him 100%. Wouldn’t you?
:|
:|From all of this I’d conclude that “Separation of Church and State”
:|is an ambiguous, confusing, impossible-to-define jumble of words. In
:|other words, a metaphor.
And you conclude via ignorance of law and history incorrectly.


***************************************************************
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
****************************************************************
ZerkonX
2008-08-10 14:20:37 UTC
Permalink
O.K., and thanks for the reply. But how precise a statement of principle
is it?
Kicking and screaming, I believe we must consider the historical context.
The church/state separation was a direct reaction to the European times
of divine right and State as church. So, the wisdom in this principle is
NOT the separation between The church and the state, per se, but between
the Churches themselves where one could (there is no such thing as 'A'
Church) lays claim to the state. The demand upon the state is one of
neutrality a sort of disinterested buffering agent.

This is a precise principle to me.

The great illusion is that there is some sort of religious homogeny
somewhere. There is not nor will there ever be if religion is to have any
personal relevance. Paine said, "My own mind is my own church". This can
be said by any member of any established Church.

The Church is really churches. Religion is actually, the religions. The
sense of unity is only afforded by the sense of being attacked or
confronted by something 'outside'.

Left to it's own devises 'A' church will sooner or later split over some
issue of some absolute truth. Absolute good (claimed by both sides) will
face off with absolute evil (each opposing side) causing an absolute
divide with the need for an absolute war. Say the founders, "been there,
done that, there's got to be a better way!"
I’d think that the precise meaning of “Separation of Church and State”
would be that a church, or religion in general, must not attempt to
influence governmental action.
With what I have said.. It is precisely the State not imposing religious
demands upon the people. It is a top -> down concern. What church does or
does not do to influence the state is not the issue, what the state
demands of the people is.

What exactly is meant by 'religious demands' is a living question.

For instance. Taxes are a demand by government. Taxes pay for the time
government employees spend doing government business. Should then
government employees be using any of this time in a formalized group
prayer ceremony where the function of an entire Constitutional branch
comes to a halt? Is the demand for tax then, in part, a demand of
religion?
And what about that group of criminals, the Quakers?..
Civic action concerning civic matters motivated by religious principles,
lawful or no, is not a demand placed by government. If the Quakers were
protesting that the federal government was not a "Quaker" federal
government, this would be another issue and is actually THE issue today
as it has been since the founding. If the Federal government were then to
appease the Quakers in their demands, this would be a problem as it is
today.
.....
From all of this I’d conclude that “Separation of Church and State” is
an ambiguous, confusing, impossible-to-define jumble of words. In other
words, a metaphor.
If this were true, then all law is a metaphor!

I do believe the church/state issue, today, is mostly false in nature.
The most apparent and visible opponents do not actually represent the
'sides' they claim. It is an issue dominate by exploiters of division,
free floating youth angst, intellectual huskers and the just plan weird.
To me, your case is well thought out and reasoned so do not think this
applies to you. In fact, maybe we can agree on this point.
RhymeCon
2008-08-12 18:56:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by ZerkonX
O.K., and thanks for the reply. But how precise a statement of principle
is it?
Kicking and screaming, I believe we must consider the historical context.
The church/state separation was a direct reaction to the European times
of divine right and State as church. So, the wisdom in this principle is
NOT the separation between The church and the state, per se, but between
the Churches themselves where one could (there is no such thing as 'A'
Church) lays claim to the state. The demand upon the state is one of
neutrality a sort of disinterested buffering agent.
This is a precise principle to me.
The great illusion is that there is some sort of religious homogeny
somewhere. There is not nor will there ever be if religion is to have any
personal relevance. Paine said, "My own mind is my own church". This can
be said by any member of any established Church.
The Church is really churches. Religion is actually, the religions. The
sense of unity is only afforded by the sense of being attacked or
confronted by something 'outside'.
Left to it's own devises 'A' church will sooner or later split over some
issue of some absolute truth.  Absolute good (claimed by both sides) will
face off with absolute evil (each opposing side) causing an absolute
divide with the need for an absolute war. Say the founders, "been there,
done that, there's got to be a better way!"
I’d think that the precise meaning of “Separation of Church and State”
would be that a church, or religion in general, must not attempt to
influence governmental action.
With what I have said.. It is precisely the State not imposing religious
demands upon the people. It is a top -> down concern. What church does or
does not do to influence the state is not the issue, what the state
demands of the people is.
What exactly is meant by 'religious demands' is a living question.
For instance. Taxes are a demand by government. Taxes pay for the time
government employees spend doing government business. Should then
government employees be using any of this time in a formalized group
prayer ceremony where the function of an entire Constitutional branch
comes to a halt? Is the demand for tax then, in part, a demand of
religion?
And what about that group of criminals, the Quakers?..
Civic action concerning civic matters motivated by religious principles,
lawful or no, is not a demand placed by government. If the Quakers were
protesting that the federal government was not a "Quaker" federal
government, this would be another issue and is actually THE issue today
as it has been since the founding. If the Federal government were then to
appease the Quakers in their demands, this would be a problem as it is
today.
.....
From all of this  I’d conclude that “Separation of Church and State” is
an ambiguous, confusing, impossible-to-define jumble of words. In other
words, a metaphor.
If this were true, then all law is a metaphor!
I do believe the church/state issue, today, is mostly false in nature.
The most apparent and visible opponents do not actually represent the
'sides' they claim. It is an issue dominate by exploiters of division,
free floating youth angst, intellectual huskers and the just plan weird.
To me, your case is well thought out and reasoned so do not think this
applies to you. In fact, maybe we can agree on this point.
Thank you. But when people stress the idea that "The church" is a
meaningless term in this country lets remember it was Jefferson's
term, adopted by Justice Black. It's too bad they didn't use the
constitutional "religion" or even say "churches." I apologise to
several for submitting that erroneous "URL". Apparently I had accessed
the Rob Boston aticle from my link on the "editable copy" of my
website and had C&P'd the address on that page which isn't the URL at
all. I haven't had time to reply to several of the above posts but not
because I haven't wanted too and I plead for your patience.
RhymeCon
buckeye
2008-08-13 17:51:56 UTC
Permalink
:|Thank you. But when people stress the idea that "The church" is a
:|meaningless term in this country lets remember it was Jefferson's
:|term, adopted by Justice Black.
Since you have been corrected on this matter a number of times by me and
some others in HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State and you
contiue to offer the same incorrect comments one arrives at the following
conclusions:

You have no interest in historical and or legal facts, only your in flawed
RRR propaganda, your ideology.

If any one particular indivudual viewpoint was "adopted" ig was Madison's
views, not Jefferson.

However, as you have been told before, a simple glance down the footnotes
of the majority opinion will pretty much show how and why your lies are
just that, lies. You can no longer hide behind ignorance on this matter.
Thne facts have been presented to you far too many times.
:|It's too bad they didn't use the
:|constitutional "religion" or even say "churches."
You have seen this before as well.

Note, just about any reference, to religion, church etc is covered, thus
rendering another one of your flawed points meaningless:

Those who wrote the Everson majority opinion knew these things. You
obviously don't.

BTW Everson defined the Establishment Clause, but previous case stated
that the 1st Amendment appied to the states

The following case was cited in Everson:


Murdock v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 108, 63 S.Ct. 870,
872, 146 A.L.R. 81, (1943)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=319&inv...
PAGE 108
[319 U.S. 105, 108] The First Amendment, which the Fourteenth makes
applicable to the states, declares that 'Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ....' It could
hardly be denied that a tax laid specifically on the exercise of those
freedoms would be unconstitutional. Yet the license tax imposed by this
ordinance is in substance just that.

Petitioners spread their interpretations of the Bible and their religious
beliefs largely through the hand distribution of literature by full or part
time workers. 4 They claim to follow the example of Paul, teaching
'publickly, and from house to house.' Acts 20:20. They take literally the
mandate of the Scriptures, 'Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel
to every creature.' Mark 16:15. In doing so they believe that they are
obeying a commandment of God.

The hand distribution of religious tracts is an age-old form of missionary
evangelism-as old as the history of printing presses. 5 It has been a
potent force in various religious movements down through the years. 6 This
form of evangelism is utilized today on a large scale by various religious
sects whose colporteurs carry the Gospel to thou- [319 U.S. 105, 109]

****************************************************************
NOW FOR THE USE OF WORDS
---------------------------------------------------
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 haven't had time to reply to several of the above posts but not
:|because I haven't wanted too and I plead for your patience.
I have heard this befeoe many times too. Fact of the matter is, you seldomg
reply to most of those who reply to you. Almost never to anyone who
actually bothers to provide evidence, data, facts etc

When you do reply you usually selct one tiny portion of what someone
replyed to you and you use that as a launchuing pad for more of your
propaganda.

Actual meaningful discussions, they seem pretty alien to you.



***************************************************************
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
2008-08-13 18:24:56 UTC
Permalink
:|Bob -
:|I almost feel I should apologise to this site for Buckeye bragging
:|endlessly about kicking me off his website, as if anyone cares.
SMOKESCREEN ALERT

[snip smokescreen]

Some things never change. For someone begging for patience because you
really do want to reply to everyone, you seemed to have plenty of time to
waste posting your smokescreen instead of replying to Bob's or anyone other
rebuttal people have offered to your propaganda.

You don't ever need to apologize for me. Spend what time you never seem to
have replying to the trashing people do of your flawed points and
positions.


***************************************************************
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
2008-08-14 06:52:51 UTC
Permalink
:|
:|"the church" is not used in the opinion by Black. The phrase "the
:|church schools" is used in one place where specific ones are being
:|referred to (the ones that the students are attending with the aid of
:|state-funded transportation).
:|
:|Black did not "adopt" anything by Jefferson. He quoted Jefferson,
:|more or less in passing. If you remove the Jefferson quote from the
:|decision, not one thing is changed with respect to the legal argument
:|or its ruling. It's is just a sound bite version of the long-winded
:|definition that takes up most of the paragraph that the quote occurs
:|in (see next response for said paragraph).
:|
:|
:|They did. Specifically, the bulk of the opinion uses the phrase
:|"establishment of religion".
:|<The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at
:|< least this: neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a
:|< church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all
:|< religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor
:|< influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his
:|< will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.
:|< No person can be punished for entertaining [p16] or professing
:|< religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or
:|< non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied
:|< to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they
:|< may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice
:|< religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or
:|< secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations
:|< or groups, and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause
:|< against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a
:|< wall of separation between church and State." Reynolds v. United
:|< States, supra, at 164.
:|
:|Take out the last 4 lines and the legal effect is identical. But
:|non-legal people aren't going to remember all 13 1/2 lines. So Black
:|gave them 8 words used by Jefferson that are easier to remember.
:|
He has been told every bit of this in the past, several times in fact,
during the year and half or so he was a member of
HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State

It doesn't matter, it bounces off him like water off a duck's back.
He is just another game player much like Kenny, Dana, Strickland, Gardiner,
etc .

He is a conservative who hates to be linked to the RRR even though he, like
Strickland and vouchers, denies any such "affiliation", while presenting
all their major positrons and propaganda.

***************************************************************
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
2008-08-15 14:02:20 UTC
Permalink
:|The Court has not provided a consistent standard to judge the
:|permissible connection between government and religion.
Yes, politics does tend to get in the way of that doesn't it?
:| However, under
:|the most stringent standard still used, the Lemon test, the "Choose
:|Life" plates do not violate the Establishment Clause.
:|
:|
:|1) has a secular purpose
:|2) does not advance nor inhibit religion
:|3) does not entangle religion and government
Tne Lemon Test has been under attack by the Radical Religious Right/ultra
conservatives for many years.

In recent years they have just about succeeded in rendering it void
By no stretch of the imagination can it still be considered the most
stringent standard.

What is considered to be the "standard" now is "Neutrality" which is even
harder to define.


There is some good info here

MITCHELL V. HELMS AND THE MODERN CULTURAL ASSAULT ON THE
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
Derek H. Davis*
http://www.bc.edu/schools/law/lawreviews/meta-elements/journals/bclawr/43_5/02_FMS.htm

Abstract: This Article suggests that the Mitchell v. Helms decision, and
the course on which its sets us—offering government aid to religion as a
social good—is a blunder that will have serious adverse consequences for
the vital role that religion plays in American society. The intention of
aiding religion through the beneficent emasculation of traditional tests of
government establishment observed in Helms is just the latest instance of
our recurrent attempts to kill American religion with kindness. This
process is spurred on by a perceived national crisis following tragedies
like those in Paducah, Kentucky and Littleton, Colorado. This Article
suggests that while the United States has largely resisted the temptation
to alter the inherent wisdom of the system, recent political and judicial
changes make the First Amendment and American religious groups that depend
on it more vulnerable.


***************************************************************
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
2008-08-19 10:56:21 UTC
Permalink
:|> >:|The Court has not provided a consistent standard to judge the
:|> >:|permissible connection between government and religion.
:|>
:|> Yes, politics does tend to get in the way of that doesn't it?
:|>
:|> >:| However, under
:|> >:|the most stringent standard still used, the Lemon test, the "Choose
:|> >:|Life" plates do not violate the Establishment Clause.
:|> >:|
:|> >:|
:|> >:|1) has a secular purpose
:|> >:|2) does not advance nor inhibit religion
:|> >:|3) does not entangle religion and government
:|>
:|> Tne Lemon Test has been under attack by the Radical Religious Right/ultra
:|> conservatives for  many years.
:|>
:|> In recent years they have just about succeeded in rendering it void
:|> By no stretch of the imagination can it still be considered the most
:|> stringent standard.
:|
:|I agree it is only a matter of another case (especially with Alito,
:|replacing O'Connor) till Lemon is dead, but the first prong of Lemon
:|was most recently used in McCreary - and my use of it above was to
:|demonstrate that even if Lemon is still alive, the "Choose Life"
:|plates don't violate the Establishemnt Clause.
:|
:|Josh Rosenbluth
I understand. With regards to the Lemon test they have managed to role
two of the three prongs together and whatever is left isn't much of
anything. A so called "liberal" judge or justice might still use it, cite
it, etc but that probably won't last long


***************************************************************
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
2008-08-15 15:15:12 UTC
Permalink
:|>:|Only by you. The rest of us know better.
You have shown over and over you know very little


***************************************************************
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
2008-08-19 10:51:10 UTC
Permalink
:|>
:|>
:|> >>Now stretch this to the ultimate. A few years ago  some states issued
:|> >>vanity license plates saying "Choose Life" people complain "It's a
:|> >>violation of Separation of church and State." What connection to
:|> >>government is religion enjoined from pursuing?
:|>
:|> > Any that involve government recognition or expenditure.  Those vanity
:|> > license plates are issued by the government.  Thus, the government
:|> > issuing such a plate can be understood as government support for that
:|> > religious expression.
:|>
:|> Only by you. The rest of us know better.
:|
:|Dear Mr Strickland,
:|I've heard so much about you...............!
:|Anyway, if this site continues with its present quota of laughs it
:|should be able to cure anything. But after bringing up the subject of
:|"Choose Life" plates I realized my memory wasn't too clear so I did
:|some googling and now I remember that the wording itself wasn't the
:|main issue; it was the disposition of the extra fees charged for the
:|plates. They money was going to counseling centers etc. many of which
:|were run by religious organizations. It would be difficult to say that
:|the words themselves on the plates implied the support by the state of
:|any particular faith unless they said something like "Baptists Kick
:|Ass."
:|
:|RhymeCon
I recall you asking for people to have patience with you. That you really
did want to reply to their replies to you.

However, since you asked for that patience you have managed to find the
time to attempt to shift attention elsewhere by trying to apologize for me,
and now you find the time reply to recent posts by others but total
silence on those Justice Black, Everson, and history in general replies
to your flawed bullshit comments earlier on. the ones you claimed you
really did want to reply to.

You are repeating the exact same tactics you employed for close to a year
and half at
HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State


Some things never do change.

But we can all wait because you will repost all those things about Everson,
Justice Black, etc again in due time. You always do.

***************************************************************
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
2008-08-19 10:55:26 UTC
Permalink
:|>
:|>
:|> >>Now stretch this to the ultimate. A few years ago  some states issued
:|> >>vanity license plates saying "Choose Life" people complain "It's a
:|> >>violation of Separation of church and State." What connection to
:|> >>government is religion enjoined from pursuing?
:|>
:|> > Any that involve government recognition or expenditure.  Those vanity
:|> > license plates are issued by the government.  Thus, the government
:|> > issuing such a plate can be understood as government support for that
:|> > religious expression.
:|>
:|> Only by you. The rest of us know better.
:|
:|Dear Mr Strickland,
:|I've heard so much about you...............!
Such as these things perhaps:

But jeffy is famous for his ignorance
Jeff Strickland displays his "intelligence and knowledge"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats/msg/96d51bf8dace2663?hl=en&
http://tinyurl.com/5poae8


Yes, you do love to flaunt your ignorance

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/01961b0e44a090eb?hl=en&
http://tinyurl.com/576v32

Jeff Strickland displays his "intelligence and knowledge"
:|But the Adams son was a child, or relative child, when the Adams father was
:|Prez.
ACTUAL FACTS:

John Adams 1735-1826.
President 1797-1801

John Q. Adams 1767-1848
President 1825-1829

J.Q. Adams was approx 30 years old when his father was elected president.
That hardly makes him a child or relative child
One more time jeffy dazzles us with his ignorance
********************************************************************
NOTE THE CONFUSION IN HIS OWN THINKING:
Not mandatory, but federal law permits, indeed it compels--or nearly
compels—
hehehehe
:|But reciting the Pledge is not a mandatory activity, the clients can opt out
:|of the daily exercise if they want to. Even Newdow's own daughter could opt
:|out, but he was not satisfied with that because she was still exposed to the
:|word, God coming from the other children.
:|
:|And Federal Law permits the recital of the Pledge, indeed it compels -- or
:|nearly compels -- the recital. State Education Code is attempting to follow
:|Federal Law in this regard.
ACTUAL FACTS:

Jeffy - I don't know sh*t about law - strickland messes up AGAIN

Ever hear of this before

http://66.34.103.193/ufc/Other/Gov-Religion/Pledge.htm

1943: The Supreme Court rules that students can not be forced to recite
the pledge. (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette)

The USSC has also stated that "opting out, such as leaving the room, etc is
not acceptable.

************************************
Jeffy - I am "against" vouchers but I have offered every pro voucher
argument ever offered on the internet in voucher discussions for at least a
year to two years now - strickland

******************************************
[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" <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
I think I see more intolerance.

"Gray Shockley" <gray-***@cybercoffee.org> wrote in message
Oh, no, no, no.
You neither "think" nor "see".
Is that better?

*******************************
As far as I know, they did not lower the goals.
Since you don't know *anything*, that is unsurprising.

lojbab

*******************************
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?

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

**************************************
As you, Jeffie the Wack Strickland, are quite obviously the product of no
education whatsoever.

Gray Shockley

**************************************
[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
*********************************************************
Said to Jeff Strickland

Because you are clueless, seeing an objection when there is none, and
failing to understand the objection that I do have.

Aren't you again showing your cluelessness? Yes.
lojbab
********************************************************
[Larry Hewitt said to Jeff Strickland]
Seeing that you deleted my links to the US census and a current news
report
that both proved you to be factually incorrect, I conclude that you
acknowledge your failure and chose to try to lie your way out of your
defeat.
larry
[jeff replied ]
Those links show NOTHING relative to this discussion.
[Larry naidled jeff with]
So you deleted them because you were afraid I was making a fool of myself
in
public, and you wanted to shield me from that humiliation??

Nah, you're just a rightard liar.

Larry
*********************************************************
Jeff Strickland said
Attack the messenger, never the message. How many times have I seen this
before?
Lots. Because you're a stupid fuck.
I'm not even saying this to be insulting. You really are genuinely stupid.
You enter legal discussions without having the slightest idea of the legal
issues involved, and you show no signs of being educable.

Merlyn LeRoy
**************************************************************
Strickland said
Your language demonstrates a certain level of education in itself.
No, it demonstrates that I don't suffer fools gladly.

You demonstrate that you can't reason well, because
using phrases like "stupid fuck" indicates nothing about
the speaker's education level.
Merlyn LeRoy
----------------------------------------------------
strickland
Because I take a position opposite of yours? That's rich.
No, because you're obviously stupid, and ignorant of how the courts
work, yet that doesn't stop you from shooting your mouth off.

You really are an ignorant fuck.
Merlyn LeRoy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
strickland
Yeah, "ignorant fuck" is precise. Idiot.
Yes, for you, it is. You shoot your mouth off in complete ignorance.
Repeatedly. You're an "ignorant fuck".
Merlyn LeRoy
***********************************************
Having now read the court opinion, I can now legitimately say that you
are full of shit.

The cite you gave does not in give the actual opinion of the District
Court. One can only infer what they said based on what the Appeals
Court said about it.

The appeal was based on the claim that the District Court did not make
its ruling based on a full consideration of the relevant California
law, a claim which the appeals court agreed with.

In other words, IF the District Court was of the opinion that the
public auction was acceptable, that opinion was not based on the
Since the auction was held to be
proper, then the 9th is suggesting that private displays of religion are not
permissable on private land, IF that land was purchased from the government.
is completely off. The auction may have been held to be proper by the
District Court, but the Appeals Court held that it was improper. The
Appeals Court raised no new legal provisions to decide this; they
merely cited the prior legal decisions on the particular clause in
question, which more that adequately covered the matter.

The Appeals Court held that the auction was improper because
1) the standard for the auction was that the land would be used for a
war memorial,
2) the cross would count as such a war memorial as it is, and was
being conveyed with the auctioned property.
3) Anyone wishing to remove the cross would have to come up with a
different war memorial, and would have to pay for the removal of the
cross and for the new war memorial

The combination of 2) and 3) meant that anyone wishing a non-cross
memorial would have to pay a lot more than someone wishing to leave
the cross there, on top of the purchase price. Thus the auction was
structured to favor leaving the cross there. Since the cross was
ruled to be a religious display, the auction had the effect of
benefitting a particular religious group.
Since the auction is acceptable to the court
The auction was not acceptable to the court.
and would transfer
the ownership of the land to private hands, then the court has held
that the Cross does not need to be removed from the site.
The CITY said that the Cross did not need to be removed, as part of
the auction, and in fact that leaving the cross there, and maintaining
it would fulfill the land purpose (war memorial) specified in the
auction. That was not the court decision - that was what the city
offered. The district court did not recognize the favoritism implicit
in that offering, but the Appeals court did.
Please provide a direct quote to the effect that the federal court's
determination the cross must be REMOVED was RECINDED or COUNTERACTED.
The cited appeals court decision does not specify whether the cross
must be removed. It says that the lower court and the parties should
work out how to structure the deal within the guidelines that the
appeals court has set forth. I would surmise, based on my reading
that the city would probably have to include the cost of cross removal
and of building a replacement memorial as part of the purchase offer,
before comparing it to the non-removal bid which was highest because
it did not have to deal with those substantial costs.
The case before the 9th now is an appeal by the original plaintiff of the
case decided by the US District Court. Since the auction was held to be
proper,
Please provide a direct quotation from a court decision to verify that.
The District Court MAY have held that, but the Appeals court clear
says that the auction was IMproper.
then the 9th is suggesting that private displays of religion are not
permissable on private land, IF that land was purchased from the
government.
I suggest that your suggestion on what the 9th has "suggested" is
incorrect.
You suggest correctly. Jeffy has the reading comprehension of a
turnip.

lojbab
********************************************************
buckeye
2008-08-08 10:28:49 UTC
Permalink
:|It was so ruled by the majority of the Supreme Court in a 5-4 vote, I
:|agree. But a minority of 4 believed that the majority WAS aiding
:|religion; since the parochial schools did not have to pay for
:|transportation they had more money to spend for religious purposes.
:|And it's interesting that Americans United for Separation of Church
:|
:|http://build.tripod.lycos.com/trellix/sitebuilder/f_edit_page.html
:|
Why did you post the above URL? There is no article there
:|AU's Rob Boston criticizes the Christian Right (especially Pat
:|Robertson) for wanting to see the the majority Everson opinion
:|overturned- he's talking about the opinion of course. Later in the
:|same article he says that in their founding manifesto AU wanted it
:|overturned. And he finishes by saying they still do! And I'm sure that
:|he's now referring to the decision. But the irony of the AU wanting
:|the same thing (sort of) as their hated foes of the RR was too
:|delicious to ignore so I headlined my report "Atheists United agrees
:|with Pat Robinson." Sneaky? Well, yeah. But ya gotta have some fun out
:|of life
:|
Perhaps you would be so kind as to actually provide the URL for the article
you are referring to.

***************************************************************
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
2008-08-09 11:14:41 UTC
Permalink
:|> > What do you call a Republican with a conscience?
:|>
:|> > An ex-Republican.
:|>
:|> >http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827(FromYang, AthD (h.c)
:|>
:|> > "Prosperity and peace are in the balance," -- Putsch, not admitting that he's against both
:|>
:|> > Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001      
:|>
:|> > Not dead, in jail, or a slave?  Thank a liberal!
:|> > Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
:|> > For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
:|> > For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
:|> > For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
:|> > a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson- Hide quoted text -
:|>
:|> Dear Dead,
:|> In reply to "Not dead, in jail, or a slave?"
Standard Rhymecon ploy. Ignore where it was shown he was incorrect and
instead referame to something else. Some things never change


[snip somkescreen]
:|
:|Dear Cary Kittrell,
:|I'll resist the temptation to pick up my dictionary and write my own
:|definition: "metaphor: (noun) An approximately worded expression
:|giving a rough idea of something worth remembering."
:|Our brand new President Thomas Jefferson replied to a letter from a
:|group of Baptists, something about "Congratulations, Tom. But we're
:|getting the shaft from our state government. They have their own
:|established Denomination and it Ain't the Baptists. Please Help!" They
:|knew, and he knew, that the first ammendment prohibitted the feds but
:|not the stated from establishing religion, but just to show his heart
:|was in the right place he reminded them the American people, in
:|enacting the Constitution, had freed religion from Federal control be
:|erecting a "wall of separation between church and state," even though
:|it was a moot question regarding the state government.
:|
:|Fast forward to 1947. The U.S. Supreme Court was hearing a case in
:|which a taxpayer named Everson complained that his county was giving
:|aid to Catholic schools by giving free transportation to and from
:|schools to ALL students. The 14th ammendment had now extended that
:|protection of religion from government to state governments as well.
:|a rule for all future cases, and he revived that old "Wall of
:|Separation" quote and said that Government could could not aid
:|religion with public funds, no exceptions. All jutices voted to
:|approve that rule.
:|
:|Only one problem. The majority, including Hugo Black, voted to approve
:|the township spending public funds to help students get to Catholic
:|schools. Thus it appears that Hugo himself wasn't compleletely sold on
:|his own majority decision. And it appears that way for the Americans
:|United for Separation of Church and State, for AU's writer Rob Boston
:|wrote an article in AU's website listing the Everson decision being
:|one of several that AU wants to see overturned. I have it in my
:|website, headlined "AU agrees with Pat Robertson."
:|
:|Thus "Separation of Church and State" can hardly be called a law or a
:|precise statement of a priciple. It's a metaphor.
:|
:|As far as my needing help in basic website design I'm not a geek but
:|go ahead. I'm open to all constructive suggestions.
Ahhhhhhhh, I wondered how long it would take you to get you your favorite
RRR propaganda discourse.

It didn't take long did it?

For well over a year you spouted this bullshit on andf I and others
corrected you over and ovwer again. Not with opinion but with documented
historidcal and legal evidence.
For well over a year theere you ignorted that and kept repeatign the saqme
bullshit propaganda.

There is no crime in not knowing the facts. However, when a person posts
information, opinions, beliefs that are incorrect, and others correct them
by providing the evidence showing they are incorrect and why they are
incorrect, yet that person ignores all that and continues to spout off the
same bullshit, they are showing they are a ideologist and or propagandist
with an agenda.

That Rhymecon is why I say you are a RRR type, which you prove over and
over again with your posts.

I sincerely hope you offer up in this UseNet forum your "Other Letter"
theory. That wikllk really establish you are a complete fool here.

Meanwhile you act like some of the other resident "theocrats" here Jeff
Strictland, Ken the "Christian fool" the departed dana, info junkie etc.
Everson, the actual case was decided under the Child Benefit Theory.

CHILD BENEFIT THEORY
http://www.novelguide.com/a/discover/eamc_01/eamc_01_00419.html





Cases & Codes > U.S. Constitution > First Amendment
Annotations p. 2
U.S. Constitution: First Amendment
Establishment of Religion
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/02.html



http://groups.google.com/group/misc.education/msg/00ee38e87440e3bc?hl=en&&q=Child+Benefit+Theory
[excerpt]

misc.education

buckeye
View profile
May 17 2000, 3:00 am
Newsgroups: misc.education, soc.history.war.us-revolution,
alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.atheism
From: ***@exis.net
Date: 2000/05/17
Subject: Re: why are vouchers so popular?
:|>
:|>Again, the issue is not with school choice. That was decided in 1925. The
:|>Supreme Court ruled then (See the cite above) that parents had the right to
:|>send their children to private schools or even educate them at home. That
:|>the state could not require them to send their children to public schools.
:|>
:|>This issue is forcing taxpayers to fund the choices that parents make, when
:|>that choice involves a private religious school, thus running into the
:|>establishment clause of the constitution.
:|
===========================================================

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/vouch3.htm

School Vouchers

After the Fourteenth Amendment made the
Establishment Clause applicable to the states, the
Supreme Court became the final arbiter of whether
states could support religious schools through either
direct or indirect funding.
Research and
writing by Susan
Batte, Esq.
[end excerpt]

Cliuck on the above URL to read the rest


Finally:

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

To apply the above to Everson one has to take into consideration that the
Establishment Clause as such had never truly been legally defined prior to
Everson. History had provided some clues and direction and a couple
previous court cases had given some direction and guidence as well but no
case had actually created a "rule of law" previoulsy.

Thus, the Everson opinion defined the Establishment Clause, created such a
rule and it was stated above.

Now, the Everson court did not apply that rule in deciding Everson,
insteead they decidedc it under a child benefit theory.

Benefiting The Child, Not The Church
http://www.atheists.org/courthouse/joined.html

After the Jehovah's Witnesses cases there began a series of lawsuits
having to do with the public and the private parochial (read "religious" --
usually Roman Catholic) schools.

Justice Rutledge[6] wrote in a 1947 case:[7]

Two great drives are constantly in motion to abridge, in the name of
education, the complete division of religion and civil authority which our
forefathers made. One is to introduce religious education and observances
into the public schools. The other, to obtain public funds for the aid and
support of various private religious schools.... In my opinion both avenues
were closed by the Constitution.

And among the first which finally came to the Supreme Court of the
United States were cases of these kinds. Our culture and government being
sympathetic to religion, accommodations for religion were fostered. The
issue of local authorities providing free public transportation for
children attending religious schools was handled in such a way as to be
supportive of religion. The Court held that state legislation passed to aid
religious schools fell into the category of "public welfare legislation"
which was simply being extended by the state "to all its citizens without
regard to their religious belief."

Out of the Everson case came, then, the "child benefit" theory.
Transportation benefited the child, just as did police protection at
crossings, fire protection, connections for sewage disposal, public
highways, and sidewalks.

Next up, state "loans" of textbooks to parochial (read Roman Catholic)
schools were sustained on the "child benefit" theory.[8] The Court held:

Books are furnished at the request of the pupil and ownership remains,
at least technically, in the State. Thus no funds or books are furnished to
parochial schools, and the financial benefit is to parents and children,
not to schools.

Only the fools of the nation accepted such logic, but nonetheless it
became the law of the land and religious schools were provided with bus
transportation, school lunches, public health services, and textbooks,
since they were supplied in common to all students [top]
************************************************************************************
Financial Assistance to Church-Related Institutions .--
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/02.html

The Court's first opportunity to rule on the validity of governmental
financial assistance to a religiously affiliated institution occurred in
1899, the assistance being a federal grant for the construction of a
hospital owned and operated by a Roman Catholic order. The Court viewed the
hospital as a secular institution so chartered by Congress and not as a
religious or sectarian body, thus avoiding the constitutional issue. 42
But when the right of local authorities to provide free transportation for
children attending parochial schools reached the Court, it adopted very
restrictive language. ''The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First
Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government
can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all
religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor
influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will
or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person
can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or
disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount,
large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or
institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt
to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government
can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious
organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the
clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a
wall of separation between church and State.''' 43 But the majority
sustained the provision of transportation. While recognizing that ''it
approaches the verge'' of the State's constitutional power, still, Justice
Black thought, the transportation was a form of ''public welfare
legislation'' which was being extended ''to all its citizens without regard
to their religious belief.'' 44 ''It is undoubtedly true that children are
helped to get to church schools. There is even a possibility that some of
the children might not be sent to the church schools if the parents were
compelled to pay their children's bus fares out of their own pockets when
transportation to a public school would have been paid for by the State.''
45 Transportation benefited the child, just as did police protection at
crossings, fire protection, connections for sewage disposal, public
highways and sidewalks. Thus was born the ''child benefit'' theory. 46

The Court in 1968 relied on the ''child benefit'' theory to sustain state
loans of textbooks to parochial school students. 47 Utilizing the secular
purpose and effect tests, 48 the Court determined that the purpose of the
loans was the ''furtherance of the educational opportunities available to
the young,'' while the effect was hardly less secular. ''The law merely
makes available to all children the benefits of a general program to lend
school books free of charge. Books are furnished at the request of the
pupil and ownership remains, at least technically, in the State. Thus no
funds or books are furnished to parochial schools, and the financial
benefit is to parents and children, not to schools. Perhaps free books make
it more likely that some children choose to attend a sectarian school, but
that was true of the state-paid bus fares in Everson and does not alone
demonstrate an unconstitutional degree of support for a religious
institution.'' 49
[Footnote 42] Bradfield v. Roberts, 175 U.S. 291 (1899). Cf. Abington
School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 246 (1963) (Justice Brennan
concurring). In Cochran v. Board of Education, 281 U.S. 370 (1930), a
state program furnishing textbooks to parochial schools was sustained under
a due process attack without reference to the First Amendment. See also
Quick Bear v. Leupp, 210 U.S. 50 (1908) (statutory limitation on
expenditures of public funds for sectarian education does not apply to
treaty and trust funds administered by the Government for Indians).

[Footnote 43] Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 15 -16 (1947).

[Footnote 44] Id. at 16.

[Footnote 45] Id. at 17. It was in Everson that the Court, without much
discussion of the matter, held that the Establishment Clause applied to the
States through the Fourteenth Amendment and limited both national and state
governments equally. Id. at 8, 13, 14-16. The issue is discussed at some
length by Justice Brennan in Abington School Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U.S.
203, 253 -58 (1963).

[Footnote 46] And see Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 312 -13 (1952)
(upholding program allowing public schools to excuse students to attend
religious instruction or exercises).

[Footnote 47] Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236 (1968).

[Footnote 48] Supra, p.973.

[Footnote 49] 392 U.S. at 243 -44 (1968).
*****************************************************************************
The latest COn Law Textbook used at Regent U School of Law here in
Virginia still crries the rule of law as given in Everson as the definition
of the Establishment Clause

***************************************************************
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 · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/

[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]

***************************************************************
. . . 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
2008-08-09 13:49:25 UTC
Permalink
:|> >Dear Cary Kittrell,
:|> >I'll resist the temptation to pick up my dictionary and write my own
:|> >definition: "metaphor: (noun) An approximately worded expression
:|> >giving  a rough idea of something worth remembering."
:|>
:|> not a particularly good definition.
:|>
:|>
:|>
:|>
:|>
:|> >Our brand new President Thomas Jefferson replied to a letter from a
:|> >group of Baptists, something about "Congratulations, Tom. But we're
:|> >getting the shaft from our state government. They have their own
:|> >established Denomination and it Ain't the Baptists. Please Help!" They
:|> >knew, and he knew, that the first ammendment prohibitted the feds but
:|> >not the stated from establishing religion, but just to show his heart
:|> >was in the right place he reminded them the American people, in
:|> >enacting the Constitution, had freed religion from Federal control be
:|> >erecting a "wall of separation between church and state," even though
:|> >it was a moot question regarding the state government.
:|> >Fast forward to 1947. The U.S. Supreme Court was hearing a case in
:|> >which a taxpayer named Everson complained that his county was giving
:|> >aid to Catholic schools by giving free transportation to and from
:|> >schools to ALL students. The 14th ammendment had now extended that
:|> >protection of religion from government to state governments as well.
:|> >a rule for all future cases, and he revived that old "Wall of
:|> >Separation" quote and said that Government could could not aid
:|> >religion with public funds, no exceptions. All jutices voted to
:|> >approve that rule.
:|>
:|> Correct.  But note that the wall of separation quote was NOT part of
:|> the argument used to justify the decision, but rather was a sound-bite
:|> summary of the more formal definition of separation that immediately
:|> preceded it (which in turn followed many paragraphs of history and
:|> legal reasoning).  You can remove the Jefferson quote from the Everson
:|> decision, and it wouldn't change the effect a bit.
:|>
:|> >Only one problem. The majority, including Hugo Black, voted to approve
:|> >the township spending public funds to help students get to Catholic
:|> >schools. Thus it appears that Hugo himself wasn't compleletely sold on
:|> >his own majority decision.
:|>
:|> No.  It was ruled that helping students get to Catholic school wasn't
:|> aiding the religion, but rather aiding the students in getting to
:|> school, as state law required them to attend school, and the Catholic
:|> school was a legally recognized means to fulfill that state
:|> requirement.
:|>
:|> lojbab
:|> Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
:|>
:|> - Show quoted text -
:|
:|It was so ruled by the majority of the Supreme Court in a 5-4 vote, I
:|agree. But a minority of 4 believed that the majority WAS aiding
:|religion; since the parochial schools did not have to pay for
:|transportation they had more money to spend for religious purposes.
:|And it's interesting that Americans United for Separation of Church
:|
:|http://build.tripod.lycos.com/trellix/sitebuilder/f_edit_page.html
:|
:|AU's Rob Boston criticizes the Christian Right (especially Pat
:|Robertson) for wanting to see the the majority Everson opinion
:|overturned- he's talking about the opinion of course. Later in the
:|same article he says that in their founding manifesto AU wanted it
:|overturned. And he finishes by saying they still do! And I'm sure that
:|he's now referring to the decision. But the irony of the AU wanting
:|the same thing (sort of) as their hated foes of the RR was too
:|delicious to ignore so I headlined my report "Atheists United agrees
:|with Pat Robinson." Sneaky? Well, yeah. But ya gotta have some fun out
:|of life
:|
Up to your old tricks again I see

(1) You either have poor reading comprehension skills or
(2) you are up to your old game playing or lying tricks again


Try this on for size. It totally disagrees with what you claim Boston's
artilce says above:


http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&amp;id=8817&amp;abbr=cs_
Everson At 60
Six Decades Ago, The U.S. Supreme Court Handed Down The Most Important
Church-State Decision You Never Heard Of – And Kicked Off The Culture Wars
That Reverberate Today

by Rob Boston
[excerpt]

National organizations have also rallied around the Everson language
affirming the church-state wall – even while disagreeing with the high
court's conclusion allowing the busing subsidy.

Americans United was formed in part as a reaction to Everson. While many
clergy and leaders in public education were pleased to see the high court
endorse the church-state wall, they were dismayed that a court majority
had, for the second time, extended tax aid to religious schools.

AU's governing manifesto, issued on Nov. 20, 1947, cites the Everson case
and the earlier Cochran decision, noting, "The four dissenting justices in
the bus-transportation case solemnly warned the nation that these two
breaches in the wall of sep­ara­ting church and state are only the
be­ginning. ‘That a third and a fourth breach, and still others, will be
attempted, we may be sure,' say the dissenting justices."

The manifesto goes on to say that AU "is determined to assert its full
strength to the end that there shall be no more breaches in this wall, that
the breaches already made shall be repaired, and that the complete
separation of church and state in an undivided state-supported educational
system shall be maintained."

Alas, AU's founders were a little too optimistic. The high court did strike
down more direct forms of aid to religious schools in the 1960s and '70s
but began to drift off course in the '80s as more conservative appointments
were made. In 2002, the court approved vouchers for private religious
education.

Everson's downward trajectory and the erosion of Jefferson's wall
underscore the importance of future appointments to the Supreme Court. A
faction on the court is clearly hostile to Everson, while another bloc can
be counted on as supportive. Neither probably has enough votes to muster a
majority to either reinforce or undermine the ruling. Thus, the next few
appointments are crucial.

No matter what the future holds, Everson will be remembered by church-state
separation advocates as a seminal case, important for its clear explanation
of the scope and meaning of the First Amendment's religious freedom
provisions. Had subsequent courts embraced the Everson formula,
church-state relations in America might look quite different. Vouchers and
other forms of tax aid to religious schools would not have been up­held,
and "faith-based" initiatives would be dead in the water.

"Everson's impact was profound," said Ayesha N. Khan, legal director of
Am­er­i­cans United. "Virtually every church-state case felt its impact,
from prayer in schools and tax aid to religion to displays of religious
symbols on government property."

Continued Khan, "Justice Black's definition of church-state separation in
Ev­erson is probably the most well-stated and powerful ever issued by the
high court. It's a shame the court did not stick with it. They might have
spared the nation the raging ‘culture wars' that afflict so much of
church-state law these days."
[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
2008-08-09 13:50:17 UTC
Permalink
:|It was so ruled by the majority of the Supreme Court in a 5-4 vote, I
:|agree. But a minority of 4 believed that the majority WAS aiding
:|religion; since the parochial schools did not have to pay for
:|transportation they had more money to spend for religious purposes.
:|And it's interesting that Americans United for Separation of Church
:|
:|http://build.tripod.lycos.com/trellix/sitebuilder/f_edit_page.html
:|
Dude, there is no artticle there and I have a tripod.lycos account since
the Con Principle web site is with them and even even after I sign in there
is no article there


***************************************************************
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
2008-08-09 10:20:48 UTC
Permalink
:|> >As for "slave" it's interesting that the slave states were in the
:|> >south which was nicknamed for years afterward as the Solid South,"
:|> >meaning "solidly Democratic."
:|>
:|> In the 19th century, the Democratic Party was the conservative party,
:|> and the Republicans were Progressive/Liberal.  This started to change
:|> around the beginning of the 20th century, over regulation of business
:|> and the gold/silver standard.  Social issues weren't that important to
:|> party label.
:|>
:|> Civil Rights led to a new party realignment, and the "solid South"
:|> went from solidly Democrat to solidly Republican  in the 1960s over
:|> enforcement of the civil rights laws in favor of blacks.
:|>
:|> lojbab
:|> Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
:|
:|Bob -
:|
:|I have a sense that you know your history better than I do - that
:|should be useful for a genealogist. But remember I was talking about
:|slavery, not liberal/conservative. And in the 19th century one of our
:|Presidents was - Abraham Lincoln.
:|
You keep arriving at incorrect conclusions because you don't know history
well enough. You have been told that a numer of times when you were a
member of HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State

You appear to fail to grasp that nothing exists in a vacuum. Things are
interconnected

There used to be a tv series on one of the discovery channels or perhaps
A&E or The learning Channel called IIRC "Connections"

It would show the historical connections between things that would normally
appear to be totally unconnetioned.

Bob was replying to your comments in valid ways, you just don't understand
those connections.


***************************************************************
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
****************************************************************
Reverand K
2008-08-04 16:52:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by RhymeCon
Post by N***@Click.com
On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 05:34:35 -0700 (PDT), RhymeCon
Post by RhymeCon
And he despises the
metaphor "Separation of Church State" not because he wants to see
government influencing religion but because he wants to see churches
having just as much right to influence government as every other
organization.
They can---but not at taxpayer expense
They are (for the most part), exempt from taxation.
THerefore, to use a  tax free status to advocate
for/against policy from the entity (government/people)
is prohibited.
Every individual belonging to any church can, in the
public venue, express themselves as any other citizen.
Want your church to enjoy that "same right"-----Then
give up tax free status.
Dear Nick,
I'm sorry but I believe you're mistaken. Churches are governed by the
same IRS rules as everybody else, in fact they're discriminated
AGAINST at one point. First, they're non-profit organizations, like
ACLU and Americans United for Sep. of Ch & St. and American Cancer
Society and thousands of other non prifits that are termed 501(c)(3)'s
by the IRS. And I want to furnish links to verify everything I say so
I hope you won't mind if I link you to an article on my own site,
entitled "Churches MAY Intervene in Government," It already has links
to the appropriate portions of the IRS Code.
<A href=http://rhymecon.tripod.com/2/index.html#religion>(I'm afraid
you might have to copy that into your browser; I don't know how to do
it in Vista. Sorry.)
All 501(c)(3)'s are tax exempt and cotributions to them are tax-exempt
too. They are NOT prohibitted from getting involved in all
governmental matters, ACLU and AU being spectacular examples, but must
abide by two rules: (1) they must not get involved in a candidate's
political campaign and (2) they must not lobby, (endorse or oppose
specific legislation) to a substantial degree. And what does
"substantial" mean? I don't know, and no one else does either. The IRS
Code of 1934 has never defined it. But recently Congress enacted a
definition of how much a 501(c)(3) can spend for lobbying and it's
based on a percentage of their total budget and can be as high as one
million per year, but that's only if they sign the "h" election which
commits them to keeping certain records etc. And it applies to all
501(c)(3)'s except one type: churches. That's the point at which
churches are discriminated against.
So that's about it. If you'd like, I'd be happy to discuss it with you
furthur.
RymeCon- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
As a minister and a Libertarian I actually agree the government is not
allowed to establish a religion. There is nothing about a church or
religious organization not paying taxes if anything a charitable
religious organization should get simple not-for-profit status just on
that aspect of their work. I run a chapel and has an attached chaity
helping homeless people with housing, food and employment assistance.
I feel taxing the chapel and those elements not used for the later
should be taxed in fact I never applied for tax exeption for my
minstry and chapel. I did for the building the latter services are in.

After all a church building is to worship in and honor the faith, its
fitting those using it pay for the upkeep of that including all
relevant taxes there should be no special benefits. But I would argue
not for profit charity services since those can be secular in nature
and granted exeptions can claim equal rights to government tax
protections.
buckeye
2008-08-07 07:58:13 UTC
Permalink
:|>
:|> > Shall we make Pandeism the official state religion, then?
:|>
:|> Nope.  Pastafarianism.  I plan to have a worship service tonight, with
:|> a little Farfalle with vodka cream sauce and roast chicken.
:|>
:|> Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
:|> BAAWA Knight
:|> EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
:|> skyeyes nine at cox dot net
:|
:|There is just plain something screwy about Google Groups.
Well, obviously you are not doing something right. Thousands of people use
google with no problems

However, as I have told you a number of times you don't have to use google
to do newsgroups

I don't use google, never have, probably never will and I don't have any
problems posting and replying in the newsgroups
:| My computer
:|needed replacing, so it isn't the fault of my hardware.
You kinds of contradict yourself there when you say your computer needs
replacing so it isn't the fault of your hardware. Hardware IIRC is your
computer. If it needs replaced you must think it is old, obsolete, etc

But you are probably right, it probably isn't your computer it is probably
something you are doing.
:| I joined this
:|group
This is actually a thread in a group
:| so I could reply to Buckeye's above post. I enter my comments.
:|But when I try to SEND them the program sends something else in my
:|name.
You're not doing something right
:|His comment that I was trying to address reads
:|RhymeCon, "the "Rhyming Conservative"
:|STAMP OUT SEPARATION - of church and state
:|http://rhymecon.tripod.com/2/
:|A real 100% radical right (along the lines of Ken) nutcase
:|-End of Quote
:|
:|I haven't a clue who Ken is but how does he reach his conclusions
:|about RhymeCon knowing zero about RhymeCon?
Actually I know a lot about Rhymecon. How short your memory is.

You seem to forget you were, until you were booted, a member of

HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
:|Now "RhymeCon" is a "radical right"? Sounds like he's been demoted by
:|an "R" since Buckeye used to call him an RRR, or Rolicking Religious
:|Rightist (known only by the psychic, Buckeye, who instictively can
:|tell at a distance whether someone is a fundamentlist theocrat - and
:|a LIAR too, by the way). Actually RhymeCon is not even close to a
:|fundamentalist, while although a regular church-goer he thinks of
:|himself as a seeker, not a teacher, and has a pretty strong feeling
:|that Christians who get to heaven might be surprised to find many non-
:|Christians there, with a few atheists included, people who served
:|Christ by showing compassion to "the least of these his
:|brethern." (Mat. 25)
:|
:|And RhymeCon is not even close to a theocrat, either; He has NO desire
:|to see his church, or any religion, running the government, and
:|believes implicitly in the 1st amendment's non-establishment of
:|religion and also the freedom of religion. And he despises the
:|metaphor "Separation of Church State" not because he wants to see
:|government influencing religion but because he wants to see churches
:|having just as much right to influence government as every other
:|organization. That stupid metaphor would (if it were a law) work in
:|both directions (Assoc. Justice Hugo Black said so) while the 1st
:|amendment religion clauses clearly create a one-way street.
:|
:|RhymeCon
:|http://rhymecon.tripod.com
IN site of your denials, your positions, your own arguments, your own words
define who and what you are. You sound off far too much propaganda,
directly from the Radical Religious Right to be other wise.



***************************************************************
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
****************************************************************
RhymeCon
2008-08-07 21:06:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by RhymeCon
Post by Knuje
Shall we make Pandeism the official state religion, then?
Nope.  Pastafarianism.  I plan to have a worship service tonight, with
a little Farfalle with vodka cream sauce and roast chicken.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
There is just plain something screwy about Google Groups. My computer
needed replacing, so it isn't the fault of my hardware. I joined this
group so I could reply to Buckeye's above post. I enter my comments.
But when I try to SEND them the program sends something else in my
name. His comment that I was trying to address reads
RhymeCon, "the "Rhyming Conservative"
STAMP OUT SEPARATION - of church and statehttp://rhymecon.tripod.com/2/
A real 100% radical right (along the lines of Ken) nitcase
-End of Quote
I haven't a clue who Ken is but how does he reach his conclusions
about RhymeCon knowing zero about RhymeCon?
Now "RhymeCon" is a "radical right"? Sounds like he's been demoted by
an "R" since Buckeye used to call him an RRR, or Rolicking  Religious
Rightist (known only by the psychic, Buckeye, who instictively  can
tell at a distance whether someone is a fundamentlist theocrat  - and
a LIAR too, by the way). Actually RhymeCon is not even close to a
fundamentalist, while although a regular church-goer he thinks of
himself as a seeker, not a teacher, and has a pretty strong feeling
that Christians who get to heaven might be surprised to find many non-
Christians there, with a few atheists included, people who served
Christ by showing compassion to "the least of these his
brethern." (Mat. 25)
And RhymeCon is not even close to a theocrat, either; He has NO desire
to see his church, or any religion, running the government, and
believes implicitly in the 1st amendment's non-establishment of
religion and also the freedom of religion. And he despises the
metaphor "Separation of Church State" not because he wants to see
government influencing religion but because he wants to see churches
having just as much right to influence government as every other
organization. That stupid metaphor would (if it were a law) work in
both directions (Assoc. Justice Hugo Black said so) while the 1st
amendment religion clauses clearly create a one-way street.
RhymeConhttp://rhymecon.tripod.comhttp://rhymecon.tripod.com/2/
- Show quoted text -
Dear Buckeye

I don’t think I’ve once been able to reply to one of your posts.

About my hardware: No, not a contradiction. I said my P.C. needed
replacing and I should have added that I had already replaced it. Mea
culpa.

And no, I didn't forget about having been a member of your website;
that's what convinces me you know absolutely nothing about me. You
repeatedly told me exactly what I think (in your opinion) yet you
missed it entirely. For example you told me repeatedly that James
Dobson was my hero; this was based entirley on my statement that
Americans United for Separation of Church and State had
mischaracterized a website by James & Shirley Dobson. When I said in
sarcasm that "You 'know' he's my hero." you said that proves it for
apparently anything the illustrious Buckeye knows HAS to be true
because Buckeye is incapable of error. You repeatedly stated I'm an
RRR although I know I'm not even close to them. That was based on my
refusal to bow down and worship your sacred mantra "Separation of
Church and State." It never occurred to you that it might be possible
for someone to believe as I do that Government must not influence
religion (that's in the 1st ammendment) but that religion has every
right to influence government (that's in the 1st ammendment too,
unless it's been changed to say "freedom of non-religious speech and
press only.")

And no, I didn't forget you booted me from your site, which was
certainly your right and I'm surprised you waited as long as you did.
But you had just challenged me to prove my statement that Assoc.
Justice Hugo Black had (as I recall - I don't have access to the
archive) voted to approve the spending of public funds to transport
kids to Catholic schools, and after I had prepared my reply the next
day (the link is on my website under "AU agrees with Pat Robertson)"
and tried to send it I found that you had removed me, this being the
most gutless thing I've seen anyone do.

And I have sincere respect for the research you've done into what our
founders said and wrote but when it comes to what people think today,
you've completely forgotten about your favorite catch-phrase "get the
facts."

RhymeCon
http://rhymecon.tripod.com/2/
buckeye
2008-08-09 09:37:15 UTC
Permalink
:|
:|Dear Buckeye
:|
:|I don’t think I’ve once been able to reply to one of your posts.
Learn how to use UseNet
:|About my hardware: No, not a contradiction. I said my P.C. needed
:|replacing and I should have added that I had already replaced it. Mea
:|culpa.
:|
:|And no, I didn't forget about having been a member of your website;
:|that's what convinces me you know absolutely nothing about me.
A little education dude:
(1) People can live together for years and not "know" each other.
(2) Obviously, since we have never met we aren't going to know much about
each other
(3) A person does reveal a great deal about themselves in what they write,
far more, often times then they realize.
(4) I base my comments concerning your "position" based on your original
email, your website and well over a year of posts and comments from you on
the HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/ Yahoo group
:|You
:|repeatedly told me exactly what I think (in your opinion) yet you
:|missed it entirely. For example you told me repeatedly that James
:|Dobson was my hero; this was based entirley on my statement that
:|Americans United for Separation of Church and State had
:|mischaracterized a website by James & Shirley Dobson.
(Yawn)
:|When I said in
:|sarcasm that "You 'know' he's my hero." you said that proves it for
:|apparently anything the illustrious Buckeye knows HAS to be true
:|because Buckeye is incapable of error.
(Yawn)
:|You repeatedly stated I'm an
:|RRR although I know I'm not even close to them. That was based on my
:|refusal to bow down and worship your sacred mantra "Separation of
:|Church and State." It never occurred to you that it might be possible
:|for someone to believe as I do that Government must not influence
:|religion (that's in the 1st ammendment) but that religion has every
:|right to influence government (that's in the 1st ammendment too,
LOL, False, dude, false.
:| It never occurred to you that it might be possible
:|for someone to believe as I do that Government must not influence
:|religion (that's in the 1st ammendment) but that religion has every
:|right to influence government (that's in the 1st ammendment too,
Look who is quoting it here, you hahahaha.

You can believe anything you want. However, beliefs do help to define
you. In spite of your denials you do echo the RRR propaganda in many areas.
Your like Jeffy Strickland, a fellow here who says he opposes school
vouchers yet advances ever pro voucher argument ever found on the Internet.
:|unless it's been changed to say "freedom of non-religious speech and
:|press only.")
BTW kindly quote where the 1st Amendment says, in your opinion,
:| It never occurred to you that it might be possible
:|for someone to believe as I do that Government must not influence
:|religion (that's in the 1st ammendment) but that religion has every
:|right to influence government (that's in the 1st ammendment too,
:|
:|And no, I didn't forget you booted me from your site, which was
:|certainly your right and I'm surprised you waited as long as you did.
Just shows how tolerant I was/am. You were given every possible
opportunity, far more then most there wished you had been given.
You continued playing the usual games you RRR propagandist types like to
play. Thus you were tossed off the site.

You weren't there to actually have bona fide discussions, you were there to
play your silly games.
:|But you had just challenged me to prove my statement that Assoc.
:|Justice Hugo Black had (as I recall - I don't have access to the
:|archive) voted to approve the spending of public funds to transport
:|kids to Catholic schools, and after I had prepared my reply the next
:|day (the link is on my website under "AU agrees with Pat Robertson)"
:|and tried to send it I found that you had removed me, this being the
:|most gutless thing I've seen anyone do.
(Yawn) Poor baby, so misunderstood.
I told you over and over and over again to back up your bullshit propaganda
with facts. You refused to do so over and over and over again, because you
couldn't back it up, there were no facts. There are no such facts.

Thus your resorted to your games and that got you booted.

You are holding a losing hand here. First of all, there are a lot of very
knowledgeable and intelligent people here. They will see through your
bullshit real fast. Secondly, I have been in this forum since 1995, people
know me here. They don't know you but they soon will.
:|
:|And I have sincere respect for the research you've done into what our
:|founders said and wrote but when it comes to what people think today,
:|you've completely forgotten about your favorite catch-phrase "get the
:|facts."
Ahem, as I said people know me here. You are already making a fool of
yourself here with lame comments like the ending of the above .

The one without the facts is you.


***************************************************************
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
****************************************************************
Brian E. Clark
2008-08-04 21:48:43 UTC
Permalink
In article <c9p594ltogqejkn0bgfd24gd63jdkransa@
4ax.com>, buckeye said...
Post by buckeye
RhymeCon," the "Rhyming Conservative
STAMP OUT SEPARATION - of church and state
http://rhymecon.tripod.com/2/
In my opinion there is nothing more unamerican than
trying to close the gulf between church and state.
Secular government was the Founders' greatest
contribution to democracy.

Yet millions of American conservatives, who never tire
of shouting about their love of their country, are
drawing plans to erect a suspension bridge across the
gap. Christians will cross for free, of course; people
of other faiths will pay a heavy toll.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...