William Rehnquist totally destroys "Separation of Church and State" myth

http://www.belcherfoundation.org/wallace_v_jaffree_dissent.htm ^ | William Rehnquist

[Republic]

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.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"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.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Posts #71 and #72 on this thread detail the different versions of the Ten Commandments.

[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.

[redbaiter]

bump and thanks!

[samiam1972]

ping for later

[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.

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.

[Jason_b]

bump

[ArGee]

Bump for later read.

[Sir Gawain]

I disagree with tpaine on this issue, but he's no left winger.

[PhilipFreneau]

>> 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."

[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.
-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

[CyberAnt]

Yes, thank you for posting this - I have bookmarked it!

[Ohioan]

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

[PhilipFreneau]

>> 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.

[PhilipFreneau]

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.

[tpaine]

Whatever.


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

[PhilipFreneau]

>> 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.

[hope]

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..

[GulliverSwift]

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.