Another fucking moron and a poorly constructed attack piece.
6 of the 13 Sovereign States *HAD* state supported religions WHEN the
Bill of Rights were ratified. Why would they restrict themselves? Oh
yeah ... they didn't ... it plainly says CONGRESS shall make no law ...
Now, how is it again that we go from a prohibition on Congress making
laws on five (5) items that they are nowhere empowered
to make law in the first place ... to some *mythical* and *magical* application
to any and every level of government imaginable when convenient? Oh yeah,
Our Robed Masters decreed it and further Robed Masters hold it as sacrosanct.
Regard$,
--MJ
(11) Justice William Rehnquist made an extensive
study of the history of the First Amendment.
In his dissent in Wallace v. Jaffree (472 U.S.
38, 48, n. 30 [1984],) he stated: `There is
simply no historical foundation for the
proposition that the Framers intended to build
the `wall of separation' that was constitutionalized
in Everson. . . . But the greatest injury of the
`wall' notion is its mischievous diversion of
judges from the actual intentions of the drafters
of the Bill of Rights. . . . [N]o 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. . . . It should be frankly and
explicitly abandoned. . . . Our perception has been
clouded not by the Constitution but by the mists
of an unnecessary metaphor. `It would come as much
of a shock to those who drafted the Bill of Rights,
as it will to a large number of thoughtful Americans
today, to learn that the Constitution, as construed
by the majority, prohibits the Alabama Legislature
from endorsing prayer. George Washington himself,
at the request of the very Congress which passed
the Bill of Rights, proclaimed a day of public
thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by
acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal
favors of Almighty God. History must judge whether
it was the Father of his Country in 1789, or a
majority of the Court today, which has strayed from
the meaning of the Establishment Clause.'
At 04:06 PM 10/20/2010, you wrote:
On First Amendment smarts, is GOP Christine O'Donnell you? Is she right?
Two thirds of Americans may think they know their First Amendment
freedom of religion better than Delaware senatorial candidate
Christine O'Donnell. But are they wrong?
The U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey, released last month by the Pew
Forum on Religion & Public Life, finds 68% knew that the Constitution
says "the government shall neither establish a religion nor interfere
with the practice of religion."
But, like O'Donnell, who got hung up on the literal words "separation
of church and state," (and couldn't identify many other amendments
either) in a debate Tuesday, many are fuzzy on its application, Pew
found.
Many survey respondents saw Constitutional restrictions on religion in
the classroom that actually don't exist: Just 36% of respondents knew
teachers may offer classes comparing world religions; just 23% knew
that teachers can read from the Bible as an example of literature.
Now, Noel Sheppard at conservative-leaning media critique site
Newsbusters, stands up for O'Donnell on sticking to the Constitutional
language rather than relying on how these words have translated into
centuries of law.
The National Archives in Washington has served as home to the
Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights
since 1952. Christine O'Donnell may be right on the literal language
but is she right on law and traditional understanding of the First
Amendment?
CAPTIONBy Heather Wines, Gannett News ServiceSheppard sites an
Investors Daily editorial that says:
What the Constitution does say, in the Establishment Clause of the
First Amendment, is that "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
-- a restriction imposed upon the state to prevent its interference in
religious practice.
And Sheppard consults a 2002 book, Separation of Church and State, in
which Columbia Law Professor Phillip Hamburger
... argues that the early Americans enacted the Establishment Clause
to prevent the corruption of religion by worldly influences, and that
"the constitutional authority for separation is without historical
foundation.
The defenders of O'Donnell (and Sharron Angle who says similar things
about church-state-separation) say those words, coined by Thomas
Jefferson in an 1802 letter, are not the way understand and employ the
Constitution in 2010. The First Amendment wording is meant to keep
government out of church, not keep the values of faith out of
government.
Since O'Donnell is seen on the debate video saying she didn't have a
copy of the Constitution along with her, I wonder how many have been
mailed to her campaign office?
Did O'Donnell fluff her civics test -- or is she right in line with
most Americans on Constitutional knowledge? Is she you? Is she right?
More:
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/post/2010/10/christine-odonnell-separation-church-state-first-amendment-/1
--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
