2, 2004 9:14 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Speaking of church and state
God in this case being the generic creator. Remember that even though
specific religions were being debated when this nation was founded, it was
still mainly assumed that we were created. God as creator is mentioned in
t; you looks like :)
>
> Tim
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2004 10:03 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Speaking of church and state
>
> NO I don't want to clean up after t
As much hair as you have on your face, I shudder to think what the rest of
you looks like :)
Tim
-Original Message-
From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2004 10:03 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Speaking of church and state
NO I don&#
. Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 4:40 PM
> > To: CF-Community
> > Subject: Re: Speaking of church and state
> >
> > Then those people from that baptist church down the street certain
> > have been suggesting quite loudly. I've st
Just answer the door nude. That should take care of it.
> -Original Message-
> From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 4:40 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Speaking of church and state
>
> Then those people from that ba
From: Larry C. Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 23:05:03 -0400
Subject: Re: Speaking of church and state
To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Think of it Dana, that decision means that any non-custodial parent
now cannot sue on behalf of their kid. You can stretch the d
2004 2:47 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Speaking of church and state
Whether the Pledge is prayer is still being debated.
how can that be debated...it's not prayer :)
-Original Message-
From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 2:37 PM
To:
ailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 5:20 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Speaking of church and state
>
> On the one occasion a "witnessing" Bible thumper made the mistake of
> chasing me, I found that singing the following to mysel
Think of it Dana, that decision means that any non-custodial parent
now cannot sue on behalf of their kid. You can stretch the decision a
bit and possibly remove all rights from non-custodial parents.
larry
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 18:32:04 -0600, dana tierney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> yeah, really.
One word:
LaRouche
Tim
-Original Message-
From: Ben Doom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 5:20 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Speaking of church and state
On the one occasion a "witnessing" Bible thumper made the mistake of
chasing me, I
[loathe] > Why cannot a Shi'ite Muslim pledge allegiance to a country who
grants equal
[loathe] > rights to Sunnis and Kurds?
Because the fatwas say that they must kill the non-believers, or take them
slave and loot their belongings.
Seriously the differences between forms of Islam are just as vi
constitution. Simply saying the word god is not the same as forming a state
religion.
Tim
-Original Message-
From: Nick McClure [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 2:20 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Speaking of church and state
It claims that this nation is
Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 1:31 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Speaking of church and state
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 14:16:45 -0400, Monique Boea
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> but the fact that people think it to mean that congress cannot m
yeah, really.
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 15:31:57 -0400, Larry C. Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But by doing that that decision
> opens up all sorts of other problems in divorce and child custody law.
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[Fast Unsubscribe]
[User Settings]
[Donat
ls?
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 2:19 PM
> > To: CF-Community
> > Subject: Re: Speaking of church and state
> >
> > Prayer in schools
02 Jul 2004 13:48:52 -0700
Subject: Re: Speaking of church and state
To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
If you come up to me and start talking about your religion and I didn't
ask you to, you are "pushing" your religion on me.
most assuredly.
and I push back, fair is fai
On the one occasion a "witnessing" Bible thumper made the mistake of
chasing me, I found that singing the following to myself got rid of him
quickly:
Satan loves me,
This I know,
For the Voices
Tell me so
Sometime, ask me about the socialist pamphleteer who made the mistake of
askimg me wh
ne.
>
> (maybe)
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jerry Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 4:33 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: Speaking of church and state
>
> Maybe no one on this list, but I often get woken up way too early on
&g
Why cannot a Shi'ite Muslim pledge allegiance to a country who grants equal
rights to Sunnis and Kurds?
From: Marwan Saidi
Subject: RE: Speaking of church and state
Uhhh, WTF?
Go back because they don't believe in one god? What if they were born here?
What if that's their
Based on that philosophy, the Native Americans should kick all us
monotheistic newcomers out. Right? Right?!?
--BenD
Doug White wrote:
> - Original Message -
>
> But the phrase Under God is an implicit state endorsement of a
> monotheistic religion. That discriminates against thos
Given Dougs usual stances I think he was making with the joking...
Perhaps to poke fun at the "love it or leave it" crowd
Marwan Saidi wrote:
> Uhhh, WTF?
> Go back because they don't believe in one god? What if they were born
> here?
> What if that's their (constitutionally protected) choice?
5:05 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Speaking of church and state
- Original Message -
But the phrase Under God is an implicit state endorsement of a
monotheistic religion. That discriminates against those who worship
more than one god, or those who do not worship any deity.
- Original Message -
But the phrase Under God is an implicit state endorsement of a
monotheistic religion. That discriminates against those who worship
more than one god, or those who do not worship any deity.
Perhaps it is time for those you describe to leave the country and go
If you come up to me and start talking about your religion and I didn't
ask you to, you are "pushing" your religion on me.
most assuredly.
and I push back, fair is fair after all, right?
I find that when I do, most of them go away.
The few that don't get the Anton LeVay (i think I remembered to
Well guys
have a good time celebrating our freedom this weekend
stay safe
-Original Message-
From: William H Bowen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 4:32 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Speaking of church and state
well, a few do.
> I don't think anyone d
"Witnessing" as church folk call it, is not pushing a religion. It is
"suggesting" one.
(maybe)
-Original Message-
From: Jerry Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 4:33 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Speaking of church and state
Maybe no o
I meant on this list :)
-Original Message-
From: Nick McClure [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 4:32 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Speaking of church and state
Sure, many people believe they have a responsibility to attempt to convert
people to a particular
well, a few do.
> I don't think anyone disagrees with the fact that pushing a religion on
> anyone is wrong
--
will
"If my life weren't funny, it would just be true;
and that would just be unacceptable."
-- Carrie Fisher
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[Fast Unsubscribe]
Maybe no one on this list, but I often get woken up way too early on Saturday mornings by people who don't quite agree.
Jerry Johnson
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/02/04 04:14PM >>>
I don't think anyone disagrees with the fact that pushing a religion on
anyone is wrong
[Todays Threads]
[This Messag
TECTED]
> Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 2:25 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Speaking of church and state
>
>
> Quoting the quote from Kevin the doctrine was adopted from Jefferson's
> letter of
> 1802
>
> In Danbury, CT there was a Congregationalist church that
.
_
From: Monique Boea [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 4:14 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Speaking of church and state
I don't think anyone disagrees with the fact that pushing a religion on
anyone is wrong
:)
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
I don't think anyone disagrees with the fact that pushing a religion on
anyone is wrong
:)
-Original Message-
From: Ben Doom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 4:02 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Speaking of church and state
Monique Boea wrote:
> I t
visit www.antiwrap.com to send long url emails to your friends!
-- dont mistake my perfection as arrogance
anonymous
-Original Message-
From: Nick McClure [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 4:02 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Speaking of church and state
Basically. Is
I'm going to regret this, but
And the real issues are?
--BenD
Maureen wrote:
> Exactly. The whole brohaha with the 10 commandments, the pledge, the
> confederate flag, etc are distractions used to avoid public notice of
> the real issues.
>
> Maur
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[S
like whether Clinton is a philandering bastard?
;-)
Maureen wrote:
> Exactly. The whole brohaha with the 10 commandments, the pledge, the
> confederate flag, etc are distractions used to avoid public notice of
> the real issues.
--
will
"If my life weren't funny, it would just be true;
an
Monique Boea wrote:
> I think the whole 10 commandments issue is trivial.
> When I go to a courthouse, I really could care less what is displayed.
> I don't even pay attention to what is on the walls, etc.
Personally, I'm not that upset about them in courthouses. Typically, if
you're in a courth
Jefferson didn't write the Virginia Bill of Rights James Mason did.
_
From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 3:21 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Speaking of church and state
Both John Adams and Thomas Jefferson discussed separation of churc
and if I need to read the 10COM I go
to the bible.
There are a lot more important things to fight about.
-Original Message-
From: Ben Doom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 3:19 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Speaking of church and state
I would argue th
Ian,
You develop one of those, and in one year you will be richer than Bill
Gates because the program will be that popular.
larry
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 12:33:43 -0700, Ian Skinner
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I don't need a spell checker, I need a "this is what you meant to type idiot" checker.
I find it interesting that "Under God" did not appear in the pledge until 1954. Is it really that much of a tradition then? 50 years not I guess, but the original pledge is 110 years old. What was wrong with it?
I pledge allegiance to my Flag,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one N
erential treatment over any other document
> religious or otherwise.
>
> _
>
> From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 2:19 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Speaking of church and state
>
>
> Prayer in schools is i
a lot more important things to fight about.
-Original Message-
From: Ben Doom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 3:19 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Speaking of church and state
I would argue that placing the 10 Commandments on government property
without the assum
best thing to do is to remove the religious references.
_
From: Ben Doom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 3:19 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Speaking of church and state
I would argue that placing the 10 Commandments on government property
without the assumption th
And that is exactly the root of the recent hullabaloo in an Alabama court house. The where given preferential treatment, the judge who had the display moved in during the night would not allow other religion's to display anything along with the 10 Commandments. So pretty straight forward in my mi
EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 2:37 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Speaking of church and state
>
> As I said, prayer IS legal in public schools. MANDATED prayer is what
> is illegal. That was decided by the Supreme Court in the 1960s.
> Whether the Pledge is
-Original Message-
From: Nick McClure [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 3:26 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Speaking of church and state
Would you consider it being forced to listen if your child was sitting
next
to the child saying the prayer?
Many have argued that this is
hen?
> >
> > Actually I went to private school grades 1-8 (catholic)
> >
> > Sorry :)
> >
> > But has it always been illegal for public schools?
> >
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
ls.
>
> It's not the place for religion
>
> If you want your kids to prayer in school, send them to private.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Marwan Saidi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 2:25 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: Sp
of course not.
-Original Message-
From: Nick McClure [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 3:11 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Speaking of church and state
Should your child be forbidden to say a blessing of his food before eating?
_
From: Monique Boea
PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 3:10 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Speaking of church and state
nope, but the other kids shouldn't be:
1. forced to listen to it
2. forced to follow along
that's it.
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[Fast Unsubscribe]
[Use
Agreed
_
From: Ian Skinner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 3:10 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Speaking of church and state
I think items like the 10 Commandments can be shown as historical documents,
so long as they are not given preferential treatment over any
Both John Adams and Thomas Jefferson discussed separation of church
and state using those words. Jefferson's various letters to
constituants and to several churches emphasized those points. Moreover
he was very specific when he wrote the Virginia Bill of Right about
the separation.
larry
On Fri,
2:54 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Speaking of church and state
I hope you don't mind, but I am going to steal a couple of your answers for
my own faq on this subject.
You very clearly laid open the arguments.
Thanks
Jerry Johnson
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/02/04 02:25PM >>>
N
I would argue that placing the 10 Commandments on government property
without the assumption that we need to place the 8-fold path, etc.
there, too, is inherently giving preferential treatment for Christianity.
Further, by classifying the 10 Commandments as a "historical document"
you open the
church and state
Whether the Pledge is prayer is still being debated.
how can that be debated...it's not prayer :)
-Original Message-
From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 2:37 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Speaking of church and state
As I
pentagram or some such alongside the ten commandments...
-Original Message-
From: Ian Skinner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 2:31 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Speaking of church and state
Exactly, what about the various Native American religions, Shintism
!
-- dont mistake my perfection as arrogance
anonymous
-Original Message-
From: Nick McClure [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 3:11 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Speaking of church and state
Should your child be forbidden to say a blessing of his food bef
I think items like the 10 Commandments can be shown as historical documents,
so long as they are not given preferential treatment over any other document
religious or otherwise.
And that is exactly the root of the recent hullabaloo in an Alabama court house. The where given preferential treatme
Should your child be forbidden to say a blessing of his food before eating?
_
From: Monique Boea [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 2:27 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Speaking of church and state
I send my son to school to learn not to pray
[Todays Threads
-Community
Subject: Re: Speaking of church and state
Quoting the quote from Kevin the doctrine was adopted from Jefferson's
letter of
1802
In Danbury, CT there was a Congregationalist church that was using the
State government to levy taxes on all people in the town to pay for
the church. The Ba
agreed.
-Original Message-
From: Jerry Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 2:54 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Speaking of church and state
I hope you don't mind, but I am going to steal a couple of your answers for
my own faq on this subject.
You
Message-
From: Ian Skinner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 2:31 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Speaking of church and state
Exactly, what about the various Native American religions, Shintism(?),
druidism and many others? It is not a simple question
were
specifically delegated he thought it wouldn't be an issue.
However he did feel that it was required to gain the support of the common
man.
_
From: Doug White [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 2:25 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Speaking of church and state
Q
ligion was specifically forbidden.
_
From: Marwan Saidi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 2:25 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Speaking of church and state
Not necessarily. The clause (... shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion) can be viewed two ways:
.
_
From: Monique Boea [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 2:21 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Speaking of church and state
I don't think it always has been
We said the lords prayer along with the pledge in school
It was illegal then?
Actually I went to private s
I hope you don't mind, but I am going to steal a couple of your answers for my own faq on this subject.
You very clearly laid open the arguments.
Thanks
Jerry Johnson
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/02/04 02:25PM >>>
Not necessarily. The clause (... shall make no law respecting an
establishment of rel
Subject: Re: Speaking of church and state
Prayer in schools is indeed legal. It always has been, and should be.
However, schools cannot _mandate_ prayer because that would be
"regarding an establishment of religion". Same with the ten
commandments. Posting them on government propert
Whether the Pledge is prayer is still being debated.
how can that be debated...it's not prayer :)
-Original Message-
From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 2:37 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Speaking of church and state
As I said, prayer IS
Oh, sorry
I misread it
-Original Message-
From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 2:37 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Speaking of church and state
As I said, prayer IS legal in public schools. MANDATED prayer is what
is illegal. That was decided by
lto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 2:17 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Speaking of church and state
but the fact that people think it to mean that congress cannot make any laws
regarding religion is a misinterpretation
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[Fast U
gt; -Original Message-
> From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 2:19 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Speaking of church and state
>
> Prayer in schools is indeed legal. It always has been, and should be.
> However, schools cannot
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 14:16:45 -0400, Monique Boea
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> but the fact that people think it to mean that congress cannot make any laws
> regarding religion is a misinterpretation
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exer
Exactly, what about the various Native American religions, Shintism(?), druidism and many others? It is not a simple question.
Perhaps not, but the question is more complex. Imagine if you were to put a
triptych in a courthouse with scenes from the Christian Bible, the J
I send my son to school to learn not to pray
-Original Message-
From: Marwan Saidi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 2:25 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Speaking of church and state
Not necessarily. The clause (... shall make no law respecting an
establishment of
o: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Speaking of church and state
Not necessarily. The clause (... shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion) can be viewed two ways:
1. Using establishment as a verb. This interpretation is that congress
cannot make a law that establishes a religion
2.
coined that phrase. It's not part of the document,
but it's canon.
- Original Message -
From: Monique Boea
To: CF-Community
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 1:05 PM
Subject: RE: Speaking of church and state
where is this "doctrine of separation of church and sta
So remove them all?
Makes sense to me.
-Original Message-
From: Marwan Saidi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 2:21 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Speaking of church and state
Perhaps not, but the question is more complex. Imagine if you were to put a
triptych
:17 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Speaking of church and state
but the fact that people think it to mean that congress cannot make any laws
regarding religion is a misinterpretation
-Original Message-
From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 2:11 PM
To
ailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 2:19 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Speaking of church and state
Prayer in schools is indeed legal. It always has been, and should be.
However, schools cannot _mandate_ prayer because that would be
"regarding an establishment of religion&q
2004 2:12 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Speaking of church and state
Those who offer an intelligent challenge to the ten commandments being
displayed in "public" places (better to say government facilities, i.e. the
courthouse in Alabama) do not necessarily object to their display. They
ooohhhI want one from those Heavens Gate cult guys too...
-Original Message-
From: Monique Boea [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 2:15 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Speaking of church and state
An excerpt from the Koran and the Jewish "bible" (not s
Prayer in schools is indeed legal. It always has been, and should be.
However, schools cannot _mandate_ prayer because that would be
"regarding an establishment of religion". Same with the ten
commandments. Posting them on government property would be
establishing a state religion AND preventing t
but the fact that people think it to mean that congress cannot make any laws
regarding religion is a misinterpretation
-Original Message-
From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 2:11 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Speaking of church and state
On Fri, 2
mmunity
Subject: RE: Speaking of church and state
Those who offer an intelligent challenge to the ten commandments being
displayed in "public" places (better to say government facilities, i.e. the
courthouse in Alabama) do not necessarily object to their display. They do,
however, reques
right.
And that makes sense, even to a Christian :)
-Original Message-
From: Marwan Saidi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 2:12 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Speaking of church and state
Those who offer an intelligent challenge to the ten commandments being
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 13:59:23 -0400, Monique Boea
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Thanks! That was their exact argument.
>
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
> of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
>
>
> But I had never gave it a thought until someone challeng
avoring one religion
over all others, which is where the problem lied.
-Original Message-
From: Monique Boea [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 2:01 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Speaking of church and state
this is what some people use in the removal of the ten comm
where is this "doctrine of separation of church and state"?
are you saying it is "understood"
-Original Message-
From: Doug White [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 2:03 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Speaking of church and state
You are
+1 - Good Stuff John.
-Original Message-
From: John Stanley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 1:58 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Speaking of church and state
as an aside:
if I have to keep my laws off of your body then you have to keep your god
off of my money
You are, of course, correct.
However, by tradition the Supreme Court adopted the "doctrine of separation of
church and state" hence the argument in many subsequent court challenges.
Many misconstrue this "doctrine" as being written law.
- Original Message -
From: Monique Boea
I h
this is what some people use in the removal of the ten commandments from
public places and prayer in schools arguments.
-Original Message-
From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 1:55 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Speaking of church and state
Sort of
I would like to read/dissect the constitution one day.
that woud be a good online group to start :)
-Original Message-
From: Marwan Saidi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 1:56 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Speaking of church and state
That's the very s
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 1:56 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Speaking of church and state
That's the very simple interpretation. The original, unammended constitution
had no provisions dealing with government and religion. The way the founders
wrote that document, i
as an aside:
if I have to keep my laws off of your body then you have to keep your god
off of my money and out of my schools
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[Fast Unsubscribe]
[User Settings]
[Donations and Support]
ubject: RE: Speaking of church and state
Most people see it as the government can't get involved in religion.
-Original Message-
From: Tony Weeg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 1:30 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Speaking of church and state
isnt it the b
Sort of. The Constitution states "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof..."
The concept was partly to prevent what had happened in England with
the King and Church duking it out. But there were people immigrating
to the US from
I'll try to find the report online.
-Original Message-
From: Tony Weeg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 1:30 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Speaking of church and state
isnt it the bill of rights, freedom of religion :)
..tony
tony weeg
senior web applic
Most people see it as the government can't get involved in religion.
-Original Message-
From: Tony Weeg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 1:30 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Speaking of church and state
isnt it the bill of rights, freedom of religion :)
..
CF-Community
Subject: RE: Speaking of church and state
isnt it the bill of rights, freedom of religion :)
...tony
tony weeg
senior web applications architect
navtrak, inc.
www.navtrak.net
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
410.548.2337
visit www.antiwrap.com to send long url emails to your friends!
-- dont mist
AFAIK, that is the case. A quick google search gives me this:
Myth:
The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the
Constitution.
Response:
That is true, the phrase "separation of church and state" does not actually
appear anywhere in the Constitution. There is a problem, how
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
