Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

William Rehnquist totally destroys "Separation of Church and State" myth
http://www.belcherfoundation.org/wallace_v_jaffree_dissent.htm ^ | William Rehnquist

Posted on 08/27/2003 8:52:37 AM PDT by Sir Gawain

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-146 next last
To: All
A Crack in the Wall: Two recent books help explain Thomas Jefferson's intent for "separation of church and state."
51 posted on 08/27/2003 12:32:14 PM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Watch it... posting quotes from jefferson, in contraindication of the losing view, aka "dissenting" view from Judge Rehnquist... might cause some rather "on the edge" freepers, to hit the abuse button...

Also avoid quoting scriptures that confirm God's desire to keep church and state separate as well.. you know pestky things like that "render to caesar" and "render to God" stuff that Jesus talked about...

After all, moving that rock statue in Alabama today is going to mysteriously close the doors to every church in America... cause believers to go on unrestrained orgies of commandment breaking... and cause great confusion in Heaven. And here I thought God was omnipotent and omniscient!

Prayer now will apparently stop, love of fellow man and God, will come to a screeching halt and all our prayers will no longer be heard...

All because somebody moved a stone away from a particular location... in alabama... REASSERTING our nation's constitutional commitment to separation of church and state, which guarantees we will have freedom of both for generations to come.

Of course there are those of us who believe that the only "rock move" that affects or eternal, national and moral well-being, was the one that was in front of the tomb, where the Savior USED to be, before His resurrection. But don't bring that up either... after all, somebody will go ballistic and hit the "abuse" button on ya.

btw... GREAT response from Jefferson's pen.
Thanks for the quotes.

52 posted on 08/27/2003 12:33:48 PM PDT by Robert_Paulson2 (We need a new war... the *--WAR on GLUTTONY--* to save America...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Republic
I'm sorry my friend, I'm not sure that I understand your question.
53 posted on 08/27/2003 12:46:09 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (There's no such thing as a stupid question, there are however, many inquisitive morons out there...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
The "crucible of litigation," ante, at 2487, is well adapted to adjudicating factual disputes on the basis of testimony presented in court, but no amount of repetition of historical errors in judicial opinions can make the errors true. The "wall of separation between church and State" is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.

Bump.

54 posted on 08/27/2003 1:00:53 PM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain; scripter
BTTT

read later
55 posted on 08/27/2003 1:02:54 PM PDT by EdReform (Support Free Republic - Become a Monthly Donor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PhilipFreneau
When are you gonna stop making inane comments? Give your obsession a rest, -- go bother someone else.
56 posted on 08/27/2003 1:05:37 PM PDT by tpaine ( I'm trying to be Mr Nice Guy, but politics keep getting in me way. ArnieRino for Governator!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
That's ok, I not sure I do either upon rereading it! LOL

The gist of it is: we do not have to deny the very foundation of our rule of law, our moral codes, nor do we have to promote those codes in a way that offends others.

If the name of God is on our money, in the prayers before our congress everyday, in our hearts and instilled in our rule of law via the founding Father's careful acknowledgement in the Bill of Rights, perhaps it is ok to allow certain symbols that HONESTLY relate to our heritage to remain, no matter how the minority rails against this 'offense'. There cannot be a WALL dividing religion and government when the foundations of one are noted in the formulation of the other. That is not to say one religion is to be sanctioned above all others-but to DENY its historical relevance is somehow, well, clintonian in that the truth, once again, gets crushed under the weight of of the false wall.

How does an oath have any meaning without a higher authority overseeing it? Why does our President lay his (or her) hand upon a Bible when swearing in-and the same with all judges, etc. THERE IS NO WALL HERE....nor is there a wall between our code of moral behavior within our system of laws and religious rules for conduct.

The wall is just as the Judge indicates-a very bad metaphor. Regardless of who first stated the wall concept.

God flows throughout our system of laws, and tho no one religion is to be held above others, and certainly not state sanctioned, a higher ruling authority does deserve acknowledgement. It is in our Bill of Rights. Precious and not to be denied.

57 posted on 08/27/2003 1:07:19 PM PDT by Republic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Republic
First, we must erect a wall of separation between the concepts of a belief in God, and religion; they are by no means one and the same.

When Roy Moore began specifically promoting his sectarian view of God, is when this issue entered a different plane.

One of the questions that seemed not to have been asked in any reports on this controversy, is exactly WHICH Ten Commandments are inscribed in that monument.

They are certainly not the same Ten Commandments I learned growing up in a Catholic (if repressed) household, nor are they the same Ten Commandments that are inscribed in the walls of the synagogues that I've visited in the past, and they are not the Ten Commandments traditionally taught by mainstream Protestant Churches.

If we can't agree on the exact wording of these Commandmens amongst ourselves, the people to whom they truly pertain to, how can Roy Moore expect all those who enter the building to acknowledge what's written on that monument as being the Word of God?
58 posted on 08/27/2003 1:17:16 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (There's no such thing as a stupid question, there are however, many inquisitive morons out there...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
>> When are you gonna stop making inane comments? Give your obsession a rest, -- go bother someone else.

Talk about obsession. You have been posting incessantly on this subject for days using the same, erroneous left-wing arguments. No one in their right mind would believe you.
59 posted on 08/27/2003 1:20:14 PM PDT by PhilipFreneau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Please tell me the ten commandments as you first learned them. The Ten Commandments that our nation under at its birth are the judeo-christian ten commandments. I was unaware there was another version.

I am not for mushing up our foundations, or denying them, under some clintonian PC diversity sensitivity crapolla.

60 posted on 08/27/2003 1:23:34 PM PDT by Republic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Please tell me the ten commandments as you first learned them. The Ten Commandments that our nation under at its birth are the judeo-christian ten commandments. I was unaware there was another version.

I am not for mushing up our foundations, or denying them, under some clintonian PC diversity sensitivity crapolla.

61 posted on 08/27/2003 1:23:36 PM PDT by Republic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Republic
"How does an oath have any meaning without a higher authority overseeing it?"

This is the crux of everything.

We need men and women of higher moral standards to swear to uphold the Laws of these United States, because ONLY their strenght of character, and their belief in their oath will lead them to decisions that may be in complete disagreement with their religious beliefs, but in accordance to current civil law.

I read somewhere a poster claiming that George W. Bush was pro-abortion because of his statement that Roe v. Wade was the law, and his duty was to uphold the law. We know that the President is most certainly NOT pro-choice, but his oath, sworn on his family Bible, binds him to do what is expected of him, and it binds him to obey the current laws of the country...even if these laws may be offensive to him.

62 posted on 08/27/2003 1:24:31 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (There's no such thing as a stupid question, there are however, many inquisitive morons out there...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Republic
Posts #71 and #72 on this thread detail the different versions of the Ten Commandments.
63 posted on 08/27/2003 1:26:41 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (There's no such thing as a stupid question, there are however, many inquisitive morons out there...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: PhilipFreneau
Well, a number of us had some pretty good discussions on the subject, dispite nitpicking loonies like you butting in with obsessive inanities about imaginary left wingers.
64 posted on 08/27/2003 1:32:47 PM PDT by tpaine ( I'm trying to be Mr Nice Guy, but politics keep getting in me way. ArnieRino for Governator!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
bump and thanks!
65 posted on 08/27/2003 1:43:58 PM PDT by redbaiter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: redbaiter
ping for later
66 posted on 08/27/2003 1:45:32 PM PDT by samiam1972 (Live simply so that others may simply live!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
>> Well, a number of us had some pretty good discussions on the subject, dispite nitpicking loonies like you butting in with obsessive inanities about imaginary left wingers.

Nothing imaginary about left-wingers, sonny. I assume you are a left-winger since you use their wacky ideology to justify your revisionist history on the 1st Amendment. Further, sonny, if you can't handle criticism of your posts, don't post.

67 posted on 08/27/2003 1:48:38 PM PDT by PhilipFreneau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
bump
68 posted on 08/27/2003 1:55:12 PM PDT by Jason_b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: ArGee
Bump for later read.
69 posted on 08/27/2003 2:01:34 PM PDT by ArGee (Hey, how did I get in this handcart? And why is it so hot?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PhilipFreneau
I disagree with tpaine on this issue, but he's no left winger.
70 posted on 08/27/2003 2:02:25 PM PDT by Sir Gawain (When does the next Crusade start?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
>> I disagree with tpaine on this issue, but he's no left winger.

Maybe, maybe not; but one of the communist goals is to: "Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state"." Or, from "BOURGEOIS AND PROLETARIANS" in the Communist Manifesto" "There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience."
71 posted on 08/27/2003 2:17:17 PM PDT by PhilipFreneau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: PhilipFreneau
Well, a number of us had some pretty good discussions on the subject, dispite nitpicking loonies like you butting in with obsessive inanities about imaginary left wingers.
-tpaine-

Nothing imaginary about left-wingers, sonny. I assume you are a left-winger since you use their wacky ideology to justify your revisionist history on the 1st Amendment. Further, sonny, if you can't handle criticism of your posts, don't post.
-Phil Freneau-

Phil, you've been following me for a couple of days now, unhappy about our exchange on another thread, where I called ~you~ the socialist. I said:

All of our rights are encompassed by life, liberty & property. You are becoming overwought in your zeal.
What is hard to understand is why you WANT state governments to have the power to censor, and to dictate religious doctrine into laws. This can only be a form of political madness.

I believe certain types of censorship are necessary to prevent the perverts of society from influencing our children. The same for general religious doctrines.

Case closed. You believe in a form of socialist statism. As I said, it's; outrageous hype, from a constitution hating 'states rights' zealot.

Typical leftist babble. You cannot win this argument so you resort to name calling and labeling.

You labeled yourself as a statist zealot with:
"I believe certain types of censorship are necessary" ---

Its all over but the shouting. Rave on.
137 posted on 08/25/2003 12:48 PM PDT by tpaine

72 posted on 08/27/2003 3:35:26 PM PDT by tpaine ( I'm trying to be Mr Nice Guy, but politics keep getting in me way. ArnieRino for Governator!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
Yes, thank you for posting this - I have bookmarked it!
73 posted on 08/27/2003 3:37:42 PM PDT by CyberAnt ( America - "The Greatest Nation on the Face of the Earth")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
An excellent opinion, to be sure. The pity is that there is so strong a bias for writing hostility to religion into the Constitution, that most Courts today--including his own--still fail to see its compelling logic. The one point that was perhaps glossed over, is the significance of the precise compromise language, finally selected. "Congress shall make no law respecting an Establishment of Religion." Thus not only the concept of a Federal Church was ruled out, but any interference in any Church, including the existing Established Churches in some of the States. There is no rational way that such language can be applied, via the 14th Amendment, or any less suspect source, to prevent a State Court from displaying the Ten Commandments.

A number of posters have argued that Jefferson had a different understanding, based upon the language quoted in the opinion, and other language quoted from other sources. But that is simply not the case. Jefferson, as President, may have declined to take certain actions that his contemporaries had taken, but he actively sought to encourage religion in Virginia, and to encourage others to promote religion in their own States--though not the doctrines of any particular denomination--and he recognized in some of his speeches the idea that it was perfectly proper for the States to make such promotion via their schools and institutions. His effort to disestablish the State Church in Virginia, was never taken as a right to dictate such disestablishment in any other State.

The idea that there could only be one monolithic policy on such an issue--the ACLU view--would have been anathema to Jefferson; as would have been the idea that one could not display the Ten Commandments in a State Court House.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

74 posted on 08/27/2003 3:49:10 PM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
>> You labeled yourself as a statist zealot with: "I believe certain types of censorship are necessary" ---

You left out my reply, sonny, so here it is again:

"Pure nonsense. You obviously do not know the definition of the word "statist". "Statist" implies support of the concept of a strong centralized government, with limited or no control at subordinate levels. You are the statist since you scorn any sort of control at the state and local levels.

On the second part, nearly all societies (probably from the beginning of time) had some form of censorship. Only the most perverse societies do/did not. Our nation had censorship from the beginning at the federal, state and local levels. And it still does in some respects, though the perverts are working hard to change that. Is that part of your mission?

BTW, some of your statements are pretty stupid. May I suggest that if you are going to use big words like "statist", you should at least look up the definition.


And, BTW, regarding this statement by you:

>> Well, a number of us had some pretty good discussions on the subject, dispite nitpicking loonies like you butting in with obsessive inanities about imaginary left wingers.

I believe our "discussion" began when you "butted in" on my conversation with "risk". And you complain about me "butting in"? (Note I never whined about you butting in on that conversation). Earlier you said I did not support the Constitution, but you are the one attempting to re-write it. And you call me a statist when you support a strong centralized government. You are the ultimate hypocrit, sonny.



75 posted on 08/27/2003 4:11:00 PM PDT by PhilipFreneau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
More on the Separation of Church and State myth (I posted this earlier, but am reposting here since it fits the content:

Jefferson, in a letter to Gideon Granger on Aug. 13, 1800 stated, "The true theory of our constitution is surely the wisest & best, that the states are independent as to everything within themselves, & united as to everything respecting foreign nations. Let the general government be reduced to foreign concerns only, and let our affairs be disentangled from those of all other nations, except as to commerce, which the merchants will manage the better, the more they are left free to manage for themselves, and our general government may be reduced to a very simple organization, & a very unexpensive one; a few plain duties to be performed by a few servants. But I repeat, that this simple & economical mode of government can never be secured, if the New England States continue to support the contrary system.

In another letter, to Rev. Samuel Miller on Jan. 23, 1808 Jefferson stated, "I consider the government of the U S. as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment, or free exercise, of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the U.S. Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the general government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority."

That second statement by Jefferson came a full 6 years after he coined the quotation "wall of separation of church and state" to the Danbury Baptist Association January 1, 1802. So it is obvious to assume that the so-called "wall of separation" applied only the general (federal) government, and not to the states.


76 posted on 08/27/2003 4:26:42 PM PDT by PhilipFreneau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PhilipFreneau
Whatever.


Its all been said between us.
The case is closed, -- so give it a rest.
77 posted on 08/27/2003 4:40:03 PM PDT by tpaine ( I'm trying to be Mr Nice Guy, but politics keep getting in me way. ArnieRino for Governator!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
>> Its all been said between us. The case is closed, -- so give it a rest.

This "case" will be closed when you quit posting revisionist history. Of course, you could always "give it a rest", yourself.
78 posted on 08/27/2003 4:48:31 PM PDT by PhilipFreneau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
Great post...This "misleading metaphor" as Justice Rehnquist puts it, has been hammered into every law student since the 60's and you'd think that more of them would challenge it since it's not even a phrase in the Constitution..
79 posted on 08/27/2003 4:59:58 PM PDT by hope (Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PhilipFreneau
Good post. Sadly, many anti-religious people deliberately misinterpret Jefferson's desire to have the federal government not meddling with religious doctrines, practices, etc. through their own militantly censorial lenses.
80 posted on 08/27/2003 5:10:10 PM PDT by GulliverSwift
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: PhilipFreneau; Luis Gonzalez; tpaine
This "case" will be closed when you quit posting revisionist history. Of course, you could always "give it a rest", yourself.

You know that tpaine will never drop his wrong-headed obsession. He takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin', blissfully unaware of the facts.

BTW, he's not posting any revisionist history since he never cites any contemporaneous documents, only his unreliable and uncredentialed interpretation of them.

Others of his opinion, like Luis Gonzalez, are not so immature. They actually have read some things and post actual quotations

81 posted on 08/27/2003 5:13:17 PM PDT by GulliverSwift
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: PhilipFreneau
This "case" will be closed when you quit posting revisionist history
-pf-


"Our nation had censorship from the beginning at the federal, state and local levels."

Help me! -- I can't stop posting this crap!

82 posted on 08/27/2003 5:16:23 PM PDT by tpaine ( I'm trying to be Mr Nice Guy, but politics keep getting in me way. ArnieRino for Governator!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: GulliverSwift; Roscoe
Others of his opinion, like Luis Gonzalez, are not so immature. They actually have read some things and post actual quotations
81 -Gullible Swifty-


Don't ferget roscoe, FR's king of the inane quote.
83 posted on 08/27/2003 5:21:15 PM PDT by tpaine ( I'm trying to be Mr Nice Guy, but politics keep getting in me way. ArnieRino for Governator!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
John, I suggest you ping one or more of your lists.
84 posted on 08/27/2003 5:33:44 PM PDT by Aeronaut (In my humble opinion, the new expression for backing down from a fight should be called 'frenching')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
"And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort, which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion, which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries."--"

Perhaps Jefferson should hop out of his grave and explain how not allowing students to pray before a sports event, or at their comensements, leads to anything but quiet?

For it surely provides no comfort to the majority of citizens.

85 posted on 08/27/2003 5:34:56 PM PDT by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: general_re
That kali Sacred site thing sounds like the perfect deal to protect the business of casino's on Indian land. No doubt Davis is thinking of cutting in on Las Vegas. After all, if Casino's are legalized in Kali, then politicians can use the sacred site law to bilk any casino developer anywhere in the state.
86 posted on 08/27/2003 7:26:58 PM PDT by Held_to_Ransom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
Notwithstanding the absence of a historical basis for this theory of rigid separation, the wall idea might well have served as a useful albeit misguided analytical concept, had it led this Court to unified and principled results in Establishment Clause cases. The opposite, unfortunately, has been true; in the 38 years since Everson our Establishment Clause cases have been neither principled nor unified. Our recent opinions, many of them hopelessly divided pluralities,(6) have with embarrassing candor conceded that the "wall of separation" is merely a "blurred, indistinct, and variable barrier," which "is not wholly accurate" and can only be "dimly perceived."

But no amount of repetition of historical errors in judicial opinions can make the errors true. The "wall of separation between church and State" is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.

Excellent! Thanks so much, Gawain. Bookmarked.

87 posted on 08/27/2003 7:50:27 PM PDT by Victoria Delsoul (The opinions I value are the ones from people I respectů the rest are just comic relief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Victoria Delsoul
You're welcome! :-)
88 posted on 08/27/2003 7:51:46 PM PDT by Sir Gawain (When does the next Crusade start?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
Bump for an excellent post, discussion and for a vigorous American electorate.
89 posted on 08/27/2003 7:55:25 PM PDT by concentric circles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
No, tpaine, it is your understanding of constitutional history that is flawed (not suprisingly).

Once again: the federal Bill of Rights was designed as a limitation on federal power only. Religion was a matter left entirely and exclusively to the states.

Because religion was left entirely to the states, each state adopted its own laws and constitutional provisions concering religion. Here's what Virginia adopted:

Section 16. Free exercise of religion; no establishment of religion.

"That religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and, therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other. No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. And the General Assembly shall not prescribe any religious test whatever, or confer any peculiar privileges or advantages on any sect or denomination, or pass any law requiring or authorizing any religious society, or the people of any district within this Commonwealth, to levy on themselves or others, any tax for the erection or repair of any house of public worship, or for the support of any church or ministry; but it shall be left free to every person to select his religious instructor, and to make for his support such private contract as he shall please."

Use your brain, tpaine. If the federal Bill of Rights was intended to bind the states as well as the federal government, why did the people of Virginia adopt their own separate, detailed and wordy free exercise and establishment clauses in that state's constitution? Just for grins? Because they had an extra pot of ink and a couple of quills and wanted to doodle?

90 posted on 08/27/2003 8:18:18 PM PDT by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
The govt is functioning under herd instinct now ... cattle pens --- packing house !

Feed lot education too !
91 posted on 08/27/2003 8:20:20 PM PDT by f.Christian (evolution vs intelligent design ... science3000 ... designeduniverse.com --- * architecture * !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian; Roscoe

Others of his opinion, like Luis Gonzalez, are not so immature. They actually have read some things and post actual quotations
81 -Gullible Swifty-


Don't ferget roscoe, FR's king of the inane quote.
83 -tpaine-


f.Christian wrote:
The govt is functioning under herd instinct now ... cattle pens --- packing house !
Feed lot education too !
-FC-


Sorry kid, your submission for the inanity prize needs more work, compared to roscoes best efforts.
92 posted on 08/27/2003 8:31:06 PM PDT by tpaine ( I'm trying to be Mr Nice Guy, but politics keep getting in me way. ArnieRino for Governator!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years. Thomas Jefferson was of course in France at the time the constitutional Amendments known as the Bill of Rights were passed by Congress and ratified by the States. His letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was a short note of courtesy, written 14 years after the Amendments were passed by Congress. He would seem to any detached observer as a less than ideal source of contemporary history as to the meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment.

Bump

93 posted on 08/27/2003 8:33:47 PM PDT by A. Pole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MissAmericanPie
"Perhaps Jefferson should hop out of his grave and explain how not allowing students to pray before a sports event."

I watch students pray before sporting events all the time, there's no one compelling them to do so as a group, but they pray. Some alone, some in small groups.

I asked my neighbor's daughters (very devout family) about prayer in school, and they pray...they are not led to prayer by anyone...they pray, and no one tells them they can't.

There's a difference between "not allowing" students to pray, and not allowing the school to set aside time to lead everyone in prayer.

Honestly, would you feel comfortable having school bureocrats composing a non-denominational, all-inclusive prayer to lead students on a daily basis?

I wouldn't, in fact, I would demand that my children be allowed to pray privately.

94 posted on 08/27/2003 8:39:46 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (There's no such thing as a stupid question, there are however, many inquisitive morons out there...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Maybe you have your towell on too tight !


95 posted on 08/27/2003 8:44:01 PM PDT by f.Christian (evolution vs intelligent design ... science3000 ... designeduniverse.com --- * architecture * !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: PhilipFreneau
"That second statement by Jefferson came a full 6 years after he coined the quotation "wall of separation of church and state" '

Jefferson did not "coin" that phrase, he borrowed it (as did James Madison) from Roger Williams, founder of Rhode Island.

96 posted on 08/27/2003 8:45:41 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (There's no such thing as a stupid question, there are however, many inquisitive morons out there...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
Use your brain, tpaine. If the federal Bill of Rights was intended to bind the states as well as the federal government, why did the people of Virginia adopt their own separate, detailed and wordy free exercise and establishment clauses in that state's constitution? Just for grins? Because they had an extra pot of ink and a couple of quills and wanted to doodle?
90 -kev-


The Constitution of Virginia
June 29, 1776
Bill of Rights; June 12, 1776


U.S. BOR's ratified 1791.
97 posted on 08/27/2003 8:48:29 PM PDT by tpaine ( I'm trying to be Mr Nice Guy, but politics keep getting in me way. ArnieRino for Governator!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: PhilipFreneau
"I believe certain types of censorship are necessary to prevent the perverts of society from influencing our children. The same for general religious doctrines."

You want the gov to censor something that it underhandidly condones.

98 posted on 08/27/2003 9:04:37 PM PDT by philetus (Keep doing what you always do and you'll keep getting what you always get)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
BTTT
99 posted on 08/27/2003 9:23:01 PM PDT by Libertina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libertina
Hi!

I have a question for you.

How do you do it?

This is the 2nd Ten Commandments thread in a row where you had the 99th post.

And if you do it on purpose, why?

LOL

How are you?

BTW, it is a great post, isn't it?
100 posted on 08/27/2003 11:08:31 PM PDT by Badray (Molon Labe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-146 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson