| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Judge: School Pledge Is Unconstitutional
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer 10 minutes ago A federal judge declared the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools unconstitutional Wednesday in a case brought by the same atheist whose previous battle against the words "under God" was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court on procedural grounds. U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton A liberal California judge. I really wish that the state of California would either secede from the union...or crumble into the sea during the next earthquake. They are completely out of touch with the rest of America. This will now go to the liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals...where they'll hurry it along to the Supreme Court in the hopes that it will be heard before the court's vacancies are filled. |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... ......................snip............ Newdow's argument makes perfect sense. People in this country should be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God." Take out those two words and the Pledge is fine. I agree with you Harry. You're correct on this one! Jim |
"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer 10 minutes ago A federal judge declared the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools unconstitutional Wednesday in a case brought by the same atheist whose previous battle against the words "under God" was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court on procedural grounds. U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton A liberal California judge. I really wish that the state of California would either secede from the union...or crumble into the sea during the next earthquake. They are completely out of touch with the rest of America. But not out of touch with the constitution which is quite clear on this matter. It beyond me why religious folks - some of them anyway - are so insecure in their beliefs that they have to have help from the government. The gov't should be completely neutral when it comes to religion. Of course some nitwits thnk that "freedon of religion" mean you can choose Baptist, Methodist, or Presbeterian. -- Peter Aitken |
"Peter Aitken" wrote in message ... But not out of touch with the constitution which is quite clear on this matter. It beyond me why religious folks - some of them anyway - are so insecure in their beliefs that they have to have help from the government. The gov't should be completely neutral when it comes to religion. Of course some nitwits thnk that "freedon of religion" mean you can choose Baptist, Methodist, or Presbeterian. Peter Aitken Excellent reply Peter. It shows that you are a man that can think for himself. Jim |
"Peter Aitken" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer 10 minutes ago A federal judge declared the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools unconstitutional Wednesday in a case brought by the same atheist whose previous battle against the words "under God" was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court on procedural grounds. U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton A liberal California judge. I really wish that the state of California would either secede from the union...or crumble into the sea during the next earthquake. They are completely out of touch with the rest of America. But not out of touch with the constitution which is quite clear on this matter. It beyond me why religious folks - some of them anyway - are so insecure in their beliefs that they have to have help from the government. The gov't should be completely neutral when it comes to religion. Of course some nitwits thnk that "freedon of religion" mean you can choose Baptist, Methodist, or Presbeterian. -- Peter Aitken The nitwits are the people that seem to believe the constitution somehow reads "freedom from religion" WRT anyone being "out of touch" with the constitution, it is those that believe in the falsehood of a "wall of separation" |
NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer 10 minutes ago A federal judge declared the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools unconstitutional Wednesday in a case brought by the same atheist whose previous battle against the words "under God" was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court on procedural grounds. U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton A liberal California judge. I really wish that the state of California would either secede from the union...or crumble into the sea during the next earthquake. They are completely out of touch with the rest of America. I take exception to that - since I live here. And you cannot criticize those that hope terrorist hit red states, if you are going to trun around and wish biblical level disaster on a blue one. California is not, overall, as liberal as most people think. The two major population centers of L.A. and San Francisco are very liberal - S.F. is off the chart on the left. But the rest of the state is pretty mainstream. Most of the liberal in the state legislature have to admit that they are more liberal than the population. California's problem is a poorly run republican party. It takes Arnold Schwartzenegger to get the republican vote out. There are initiatives that never would have passed if the state was deeply left. Prop 22 - the ban on gay marriage - is an example. Passed with over 60% of the vote five years ago. Prop 13 is still the still a holy grail for a majority in this state... Many will talk up how terrible it was... But you put them behind the curtain in the voting booth and they vote to keep it. Californians, like people just about anywhere else, will vote to spend a whole lot of other people's money. Tax the rich initiatives are easy because "the rich" don't get more votes - so voters can easily pass something if they think they aren't paying for it. This will now go to the liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals...where they'll hurry it along to the Supreme Court in the hopes that it will be heard before the court's vacancies are filled. Fat chance. This will take months to get past the 9th circus, then months to be heard by the SCOTUS. Bush could put three people on the supreme bench by the time they hear this case. The only thing that may be hurried are temporary orders as to whether Elk Grove and other district have to stop the pledge during the process. |
"P Fritz" wrote in message
... "Peter Aitken" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer 10 minutes ago A federal judge declared the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools unconstitutional Wednesday in a case brought by the same atheist whose previous battle against the words "under God" was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court on procedural grounds. U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton A liberal California judge. I really wish that the state of California would either secede from the union...or crumble into the sea during the next earthquake. They are completely out of touch with the rest of America. But not out of touch with the constitution which is quite clear on this matter. It beyond me why religious folks - some of them anyway - are so insecure in their beliefs that they have to have help from the government. The gov't should be completely neutral when it comes to religion. Of course some nitwits thnk that "freedon of religion" mean you can choose Baptist, Methodist, or Presbeterian. -- Peter Aitken The nitwits are the people that seem to believe the constitution somehow reads "freedom from religion" It means "freedom from YOUR religion", nitwit. How would you like it if the pledge read "under Buddha", instead of "under god"? |
"Curtis CCR" wrote in message
ups.com... California is not, overall, as liberal as most people think. Curtis, you're wrong. Rush Limbaugh says CA is overwhelmingly liberal, and that's that. NOYB says so, too. Reality is irrelevant. |
"Peter Aitken" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer 10 minutes ago A federal judge declared the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools unconstitutional Wednesday in a case brought by the same atheist whose previous battle against the words "under God" was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court on procedural grounds. U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton A liberal California judge. I really wish that the state of California would either secede from the union...or crumble into the sea during the next earthquake. They are completely out of touch with the rest of America. But not out of touch with the constitution which is quite clear on this matter. It beyond me why religious folks - some of them anyway - are so insecure in their beliefs that they have to have help from the government. The gov't should be completely neutral when it comes to religion. Of course some nitwits thnk that "freedon of religion" mean you can choose Baptist, Methodist, or Presbeterian. We're a nation founded in Judeo-Christian values, and most of our laws are derived from such. There is no portion of the Constitution that uses the phrase "Freedom of religion". The amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". So how does one jump to the conclusion that the Pledge of Allegiance is a case of Congress making a law respecting an establishment of religion? |
NOYB wrote: A liberal California judge. I really wish that the state of California would either secede from the union...or crumble into the sea during the next earthquake. There's those nice, narrow minded Christian values for you. Kind of reminds one of Eric Rudolph, huh? You and your ilk are just the reason why some of us don't want your religion crammed down our kids throats. On the other hand, it's quite stupid for someone to lump every single person in a state into a pile like that. Let's see, how about the couple in Florida that was so cruel to their adopted children. Is every one in Florida just exactly like that? |
"P Fritz" wrote in message
... "Peter Aitken" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer 10 minutes ago A federal judge declared the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools unconstitutional Wednesday in a case brought by the same atheist whose previous battle against the words "under God" was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court on procedural grounds. U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton A liberal California judge. I really wish that the state of California would either secede from the union...or crumble into the sea during the next earthquake. They are completely out of touch with the rest of America. But not out of touch with the constitution which is quite clear on this matter. It beyond me why religious folks - some of them anyway - are so insecure in their beliefs that they have to have help from the government. The gov't should be completely neutral when it comes to religion. Of course some nitwits thnk that "freedon of religion" mean you can choose Baptist, Methodist, or Presbeterian. -- Peter Aitken The nitwits are the people that seem to believe the constitution somehow reads "freedom from religion" Freedom certainly means that you can do without something. In any case there are religions for whom "under god" is a meaningless and silly phrase - Hinduism and Buddhism to name just two major ones. -- Peter Aitken |
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 20:34:44 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "Curtis CCR" wrote in message oups.com... California is not, overall, as liberal as most people think. Curtis, you're wrong. Rush Limbaugh says CA is overwhelmingly liberal, and that's that. NOYB says so, too. Reality is irrelevant. Here's the map: http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/ Curtis is correct. Who listens to Limbaugh anymore? -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
|
"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net... "Peter Aitken" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer 10 minutes ago A federal judge declared the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools unconstitutional Wednesday in a case brought by the same atheist whose previous battle against the words "under God" was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court on procedural grounds. U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton A liberal California judge. I really wish that the state of California would either secede from the union...or crumble into the sea during the next earthquake. They are completely out of touch with the rest of America. But not out of touch with the constitution which is quite clear on this matter. It beyond me why religious folks - some of them anyway - are so insecure in their beliefs that they have to have help from the government. The gov't should be completely neutral when it comes to religion. Of course some nitwits thnk that "freedon of religion" mean you can choose Baptist, Methodist, or Presbeterian. We're a nation founded in Judeo-Christian values, and most of our laws are derived from such. There is no portion of the Constitution that uses the phrase "Freedom of religion". The amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". So how does one jump to the conclusion that the Pledge of Allegiance is a case of Congress making a law respecting an establishment of religion? It's quite simple. Governments put young children in a position where they are strongly coerced to pledge, on a daily basis, that a god exists. This is one religious opinion but it is not held by billions of people who believe that there is more than one god, that there is no god, or that the notion of a god is meaningless. By doing so the gov't is promoting one set of religious beliefs over others. This is what the constitution meant to prohibit. In this case the gov't, thru the pledge, is encouraging the religion of monotheism. I will ask you to answer this question: why are so many people, mostly Xtians, so anxious to push their beliefs down other people's throats? Why can't they go about their religion in whatever way they choose without requiring the gov't to get involved? Peter Aitken |
Doug Kanter wrote in message news:CO%Ve.1155 How would you like it if the pledge read "under Buddha", instead of "under god"? I don't know. I've often felt underbuddha, but it usually passes in a day or two. Eisboch |
How would you like it if the pledge read "under Buddha", instead of "under
god"? Uh, last time I knew, Buddha IS a "god" |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Peter Aitken" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer 10 minutes ago A federal judge declared the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools unconstitutional Wednesday in a case brought by the same atheist whose previous battle against the words "under God" was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court on procedural grounds. U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton A liberal California judge. I really wish that the state of California would either secede from the union...or crumble into the sea during the next earthquake. They are completely out of touch with the rest of America. But not out of touch with the constitution which is quite clear on this matter. It beyond me why religious folks - some of them anyway - are so insecure in their beliefs that they have to have help from the government. The gov't should be completely neutral when it comes to religion. Of course some nitwits thnk that "freedon of religion" mean you can choose Baptist, Methodist, or Presbeterian. We're a nation founded in Judeo-Christian values, and most of our laws are derived from such. There is no portion of the Constitution that uses the phrase "Freedom of religion". The amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". So how does one jump to the conclusion that the Pledge of Allegiance is a case of Congress making a law respecting an establishment of religion? The phrase "under God" violates the establishment clause and forces religion down the throats of those who are in no position to not participate. That's absurd. I can think back 25 years to when I was in grade school, and even back then, the Jehovah Witnesses in my class did not have to salute the flag or recite the pledge. Why do they have to take the Pledge of Allegiance out of the classroom rather than simply make it optional for students to participate in? It worked 25 years ago in my school, so why not now? |
"Peter Aitken" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... "Peter Aitken" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer 10 minutes ago A federal judge declared the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools unconstitutional Wednesday in a case brought by the same atheist whose previous battle against the words "under God" was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court on procedural grounds. U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton A liberal California judge. I really wish that the state of California would either secede from the union...or crumble into the sea during the next earthquake. They are completely out of touch with the rest of America. But not out of touch with the constitution which is quite clear on this matter. It beyond me why religious folks - some of them anyway - are so insecure in their beliefs that they have to have help from the government. The gov't should be completely neutral when it comes to religion. Of course some nitwits thnk that "freedon of religion" mean you can choose Baptist, Methodist, or Presbeterian. We're a nation founded in Judeo-Christian values, and most of our laws are derived from such. There is no portion of the Constitution that uses the phrase "Freedom of religion". The amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". So how does one jump to the conclusion that the Pledge of Allegiance is a case of Congress making a law respecting an establishment of religion? It's quite simple. Governments put young children in a position where they are strongly coerced to pledge, on a daily basis, that a god exists. This is one religious opinion but it is not held by billions of people who believe that there is more than one god, that there is no god, or that the notion of a god is meaningless. By doing so the gov't is promoting one set of religious beliefs over others. This is what the constitution meant to prohibit. In this case the gov't, thru the pledge, is encouraging the religion of monotheism. I will ask you to answer this question: why are so many people, mostly Xtians, so anxious to push their beliefs down other people's throats? Why can't they go about their religion in whatever way they choose without requiring the gov't to get involved? Peter Aitken Those billions who believe in a god, or numerous gods can salute their god. the phase, does not say Jesus, or Budda, or Shiva, or any one god. Get over it. The framers of the constitution believed in a God, actually I think several different versions. They put the statement about Congress not making a law respecting an establishment of religion to prevent a Church of England scenario. No where in the the constitution does is say "separation of Church and State". God is even referenced in the Declaration of Independence. |
"NOYB" wrote in message hlink.net... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Peter Aitken" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer 10 minutes ago A federal judge declared the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools unconstitutional Wednesday in a case brought by the same atheist whose previous battle against the words "under God" was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court on procedural grounds. U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton A liberal California judge. I really wish that the state of California would either secede from the union...or crumble into the sea during the next earthquake. They are completely out of touch with the rest of America. But not out of touch with the constitution which is quite clear on this matter. It beyond me why religious folks - some of them anyway - are so insecure in their beliefs that they have to have help from the government. The gov't should be completely neutral when it comes to religion. Of course some nitwits thnk that "freedon of religion" mean you can choose Baptist, Methodist, or Presbeterian. We're a nation founded in Judeo-Christian values, and most of our laws are derived from such. There is no portion of the Constitution that uses the phrase "Freedom of religion". The amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". So how does one jump to the conclusion that the Pledge of Allegiance is a case of Congress making a law respecting an establishment of religion? The phrase "under God" violates the establishment clause and forces religion down the throats of those who are in no position to not participate. That's absurd. I can think back 25 years to when I was in grade school, and even back then, the Jehovah Witnesses in my class did not have to salute the flag or recite the pledge. Why do they have to take the Pledge of Allegiance out of the classroom rather than simply make it optional for students to participate in? It worked 25 years ago in my school, so why not now? Besides the fact that it has nothing to do with the "establishment clause".....except in the minds of the braindead liebrals |
"Bill McKee" wrote in message link.net... "Peter Aitken" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... "Peter Aitken" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer 10 minutes ago A federal judge declared the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools unconstitutional Wednesday in a case brought by the same atheist whose previous battle against the words "under God" was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court on procedural grounds. U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton A liberal California judge. I really wish that the state of California would either secede from the union...or crumble into the sea during the next earthquake. They are completely out of touch with the rest of America. But not out of touch with the constitution which is quite clear on this matter. It beyond me why religious folks - some of them anyway - are so insecure in their beliefs that they have to have help from the government. The gov't should be completely neutral when it comes to religion. Of course some nitwits thnk that "freedon of religion" mean you can choose Baptist, Methodist, or Presbeterian. We're a nation founded in Judeo-Christian values, and most of our laws are derived from such. There is no portion of the Constitution that uses the phrase "Freedom of religion". The amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". So how does one jump to the conclusion that the Pledge of Allegiance is a case of Congress making a law respecting an establishment of religion? It's quite simple. Governments put young children in a position where they are strongly coerced to pledge, on a daily basis, that a god exists. This is one religious opinion but it is not held by billions of people who believe that there is more than one god, that there is no god, or that the notion of a god is meaningless. By doing so the gov't is promoting one set of religious beliefs over others. This is what the constitution meant to prohibit. In this case the gov't, thru the pledge, is encouraging the religion of monotheism. I will ask you to answer this question: why are so many people, mostly Xtians, so anxious to push their beliefs down other people's throats? Why can't they go about their religion in whatever way they choose without requiring the gov't to get involved? Peter Aitken Those billions who believe in a god, or numerous gods can salute their god. the phase, does not say Jesus, or Budda, or Shiva, or any one god. Get over it. The framers of the constitution believed in a God, actually I think several different versions. They put the statement about Congress not making a law respecting an establishment of religion to prevent a Church of England scenario. No where in the the constitution does is say "separation of Church and State". God is even referenced in the Declaration of Independence. There were also offical STATE religions until the middle 1800's |
"P Fritz" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message link.net... "Peter Aitken" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... "Peter Aitken" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer 10 minutes ago A federal judge declared the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools unconstitutional Wednesday in a case brought by the same atheist whose previous battle against the words "under God" was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court on procedural grounds. U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton A liberal California judge. I really wish that the state of California would either secede from the union...or crumble into the sea during the next earthquake. They are completely out of touch with the rest of America. But not out of touch with the constitution which is quite clear on this matter. It beyond me why religious folks - some of them anyway - are so insecure in their beliefs that they have to have help from the government. The gov't should be completely neutral when it comes to religion. Of course some nitwits thnk that "freedon of religion" mean you can choose Baptist, Methodist, or Presbeterian. We're a nation founded in Judeo-Christian values, and most of our laws are derived from such. There is no portion of the Constitution that uses the phrase "Freedom of religion". The amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". So how does one jump to the conclusion that the Pledge of Allegiance is a case of Congress making a law respecting an establishment of religion? It's quite simple. Governments put young children in a position where they are strongly coerced to pledge, on a daily basis, that a god exists. This is one religious opinion but it is not held by billions of people who believe that there is more than one god, that there is no god, or that the notion of a god is meaningless. By doing so the gov't is promoting one set of religious beliefs over others. This is what the constitution meant to prohibit. In this case the gov't, thru the pledge, is encouraging the religion of monotheism. I will ask you to answer this question: why are so many people, mostly Xtians, so anxious to push their beliefs down other people's throats? Why can't they go about their religion in whatever way they choose without requiring the gov't to get involved? Peter Aitken Those billions who believe in a god, or numerous gods can salute their god. the phase, does not say Jesus, or Budda, or Shiva, or any one god. Get over it. The framers of the constitution believed in a God, actually I think several different versions. They put the statement about Congress not making a law respecting an establishment of religion to prevent a Church of England scenario. No where in the the constitution does is say "separation of Church and State". God is even referenced in the Declaration of Independence. There were also offical STATE religions until the middle 1800's In 1977, David Berkowitz went around shooting people in Queens. |
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 14:36:18 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: In 1977, David Berkowitz went around shooting people in Queens. Then why was he called "Son of Sam"? http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial/son/sonmain.htm |
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 10:28:11 -0400, P Fritz wrote:
There were also offical STATE religions until the middle 1800's Yeah but, in the continuing dichotomy of state and federal powers, that was trumped by the Fourteenth Amendment. Besides, no one hear is talking about a state religion, they are talking about a federal religion, and that has always been proscribed. |
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 12:00:25 -0400, thunder wrote: On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 10:28:11 -0400, P Fritz wrote: There were also offical STATE religions until the middle 1800's Yeah but, in the continuing dichotomy of state and federal powers, that was trumped by the Fourteenth Amendment. Besides, no one hear is talking about a state religion, they are talking about a federal religion, and that has always been proscribed. I want a state sponsored religion - let's call it the Church of Lightning and Thunder. The mythology will be "don't pay your taxes, zap/kaboom!!! Yeah, that works. :) I wonder if the liebrals hear the whooshing sound passing over their heads. When did school systems established by state guvmint become federalized? The fact that official state religions existed for decades after the founding of the federal guvmint, without objections from the writers of the constitution, is proof enough that there was no intent of a "wall of separation" that the liebrals constanting demand. |
"Gene Kearns" wrote in message ... On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 16:05:43 -0400, "Jim Carter" wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... .....................snip............ Newdow's argument makes perfect sense. People in this country should be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God." Take out those two words and the Pledge is fine. What is particularly amusing, to me, is the promotion of a socialist's writings by people most assuredly against same A "socialist" from the late 19th century was further to the right on social issues than most of today's "conservative" Democrats and "moderate" Republicans. |
"P Fritz" wrote in message ... "Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 12:00:25 -0400, thunder wrote: On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 10:28:11 -0400, P Fritz wrote: There were also offical STATE religions until the middle 1800's Yeah but, in the continuing dichotomy of state and federal powers, that was trumped by the Fourteenth Amendment. Besides, no one hear is talking about a state religion, they are talking about a federal religion, and that has always been proscribed. I want a state sponsored religion - let's call it the Church of Lightning and Thunder. The mythology will be "don't pay your taxes, zap/kaboom!!! Yeah, that works. :) I wonder if the liebrals hear the whooshing sound passing over their heads. When did school systems established by state guvmint become federalized? The fact that official state religions existed for decades after the founding of the federal guvmint, without objections from the writers of the constitution, is proof enough that there was no intent of a "wall of separation" that the liebrals constanting demand. I and most people are against state religions. The US constitution also governs what states can do. But no where in the constitution is the phase "separation of church and state". The founders did not want a government sanctioned religion, ala Church Of England. But they also recognized most people believed in a "God(s)". Different flavors of that "God(s)", so you could believe in any version you desired. Even the "God of Atheism" |
"Bill McKee" wrote in message ink.net... "P Fritz" wrote in message ... "Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 12:00:25 -0400, thunder wrote: On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 10:28:11 -0400, P Fritz wrote: There were also offical STATE religions until the middle 1800's Yeah but, in the continuing dichotomy of state and federal powers, that was trumped by the Fourteenth Amendment. Besides, no one hear is talking about a state religion, they are talking about a federal religion, and that has always been proscribed. I want a state sponsored religion - let's call it the Church of Lightning and Thunder. The mythology will be "don't pay your taxes, zap/kaboom!!! Yeah, that works. :) I wonder if the liebrals hear the whooshing sound passing over their heads. When did school systems established by state guvmint become federalized? The fact that official state religions existed for decades after the founding of the federal guvmint, without objections from the writers of the constitution, is proof enough that there was no intent of a "wall of separation" that the liebrals constanting demand. I and most people are against state religions. I do not believe that states should have an official religion, but the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit it. The US constitution also governs what states can do. Yes, it bars states from limiting rights granted in the US Constitution. But no where in the constitution is the phase "separation of church and state". Correct. The founders did not want a government sanctioned religion, ala Church Of England. They did not want a Federal Government religion.........the states were allowed to do as they choose. But they also recognized most people believed in a "God(s)". Different flavors of that "God(s)", so you could believe in any version you desired. Even the "God of Atheism" |
"P Fritz" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message ink.net... "P Fritz" wrote in message ... "Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 12:00:25 -0400, thunder wrote: On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 10:28:11 -0400, P Fritz wrote: There were also offical STATE religions until the middle 1800's Yeah but, in the continuing dichotomy of state and federal powers, that was trumped by the Fourteenth Amendment. Besides, no one hear is talking about a state religion, they are talking about a federal religion, and that has always been proscribed. I want a state sponsored religion - let's call it the Church of Lightning and Thunder. The mythology will be "don't pay your taxes, zap/kaboom!!! Yeah, that works. :) I wonder if the liebrals hear the whooshing sound passing over their heads. When did school systems established by state guvmint become federalized? The fact that official state religions existed for decades after the founding of the federal guvmint, without objections from the writers of the constitution, is proof enough that there was no intent of a "wall of separation" that the liebrals constanting demand. I and most people are against state religions. I do not believe that states should have an official religion, but the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit it. The US constitution also governs what states can do. Yes, it bars states from limiting rights granted in the US Constitution. But no where in the constitution is the phase "separation of church and state". Correct. The founders did not want a government sanctioned religion, ala Church Of England. They did not want a Federal Government religion.........the states were allowed to do as they choose. No, the states could not do as they please. The states were also bound by the US constitution. And it is a good thing. |
"Bill McKee" wrote in message ink.net... "P Fritz" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message ink.net... "P Fritz" wrote in message ... "Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 12:00:25 -0400, thunder wrote: On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 10:28:11 -0400, P Fritz wrote: There were also offical STATE religions until the middle 1800's Yeah but, in the continuing dichotomy of state and federal powers, that was trumped by the Fourteenth Amendment. Besides, no one hear is talking about a state religion, they are talking about a federal religion, and that has always been proscribed. I want a state sponsored religion - let's call it the Church of Lightning and Thunder. The mythology will be "don't pay your taxes, zap/kaboom!!! Yeah, that works. :) I wonder if the liebrals hear the whooshing sound passing over their heads. When did school systems established by state guvmint become federalized? The fact that official state religions existed for decades after the founding of the federal guvmint, without objections from the writers of the constitution, is proof enough that there was no intent of a "wall of separation" that the liebrals constanting demand. I and most people are against state religions. I do not believe that states should have an official religion, but the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit it. The US constitution also governs what states can do. Yes, it bars states from limiting rights granted in the US Constitution. But no where in the constitution is the phase "separation of church and state". Correct. The founders did not want a government sanctioned religion, ala Church Of England. They did not want a Federal Government religion.........the states were allowed to do as they choose. No, the states could not do as they please. The states were also bound by the US constitution. And it is a good thing. Nope.......the original intent of the US Constitution was to limit federal powers to those proscribed in the Constitution, as well as defining a few certain rights......everything else was left to the states........it has only been through 200 years of perversion that the country has become federalized and thus corrupted. The fact that several states had official state religions is proof of that. The Constitution was intended to be interpreted as it was written......thus no "Federally established religion" not the perverted "separation of church and state" that exists today |
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 16:37:03 -0400, P Fritz wrote:
Nope.......the original intent of the US Constitution was to limit federal powers to those proscribed in the Constitution, as well as defining a few certain rights......everything else was left to the states........it has only been through 200 years of perversion that the country has become federalized and thus corrupted. The fact that several states had official state religions is proof of that. The Constitution was intended to be interpreted as it was written......thus no "Federally established religion" not the perverted "separation of church and state" that exists today Ah, the old original intent BS. The Constitution was never meant to be a static document, see Article V. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits state religions. If this makes you unhappy, you are free to once again amend the Constitution, but fortunately, I doubt you will find the votes. |
"P Fritz" wrote in message
... "Bill McKee" wrote in message ink.net... snipped No, the states could not do as they please. The states were also bound by the US constitution. And it is a good thing. Nope.......the original intent of the US Constitution was to limit federal powers to those proscribed in the Constitution, as well as defining a few certain rights......everything else was left to the states........it has only been through 200 years of perversion that the country has become federalized and thus corrupted. The fact that several states had official state religions is proof of that. The Constitution was intended to be interpreted as it was written......thus no "Federally established religion" not the perverted "separation of church and state" that exists today The idea that "The Constitution was intended to be interpreted as it was written" is pure nonsense. First of all, everyone interprets the consitution, even those who believe we should limit ourselves to its original meaning. When conservatives say "don;t interpret the constitution" they really mean "don;t interpret it differently from the way I interpret it." Secondly, the success of the constitution lies in the fact that it is a flexible document. It is just plain silly to think that the framers expected the document to be adhered to in a literal word-for-word basis for hundreds of years. -- Peter Aitken Visit my recipe and kitchen myths page at www.pgacon.com/cooking.htm |
Peter Aitken wrote: "P Fritz" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message ink.net... snipped No, the states could not do as they please. The states were also bound by the US constitution. And it is a good thing. Nope.......the original intent of the US Constitution was to limit federal powers to those proscribed in the Constitution, as well as defining a few certain rights......everything else was left to the states........it has only been through 200 years of perversion that the country has become federalized and thus corrupted. The fact that several states had official state religions is proof of that. The Constitution was intended to be interpreted as it was written......thus no "Federally established religion" not the perverted "separation of church and state" that exists today The idea that "The Constitution was intended to be interpreted as it was written" is pure nonsense. First of all, everyone interprets the consitution, even those who believe we should limit ourselves to its original meaning. When conservatives say "don;t interpret the constitution" they really mean "don;t interpret it differently from the way I interpret it." Secondly, the success of the constitution lies in the fact that it is a flexible document. It is just plain silly to think that the framers expected the document to be adhered to in a literal word-for-word basis for hundreds of years. I must agree with Peter. If the founders thought that there would never be a need to interpret the Constitution or to resolve differences between opposing interpretations the Constitution would not provide for a Supreme Court. |
"Peter Aitken" wrote in message m... "P Fritz" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message ink.net... snipped No, the states could not do as they please. The states were also bound by the US constitution. And it is a good thing. Nope.......the original intent of the US Constitution was to limit federal powers to those proscribed in the Constitution, as well as defining a few certain rights......everything else was left to the states........it has only been through 200 years of perversion that the country has become federalized and thus corrupted. The fact that several states had official state religions is proof of that. The Constitution was intended to be interpreted as it was written......thus no "Federally established religion" not the perverted "separation of church and state" that exists today The idea that "The Constitution was intended to be interpreted as it was written" is pure nonsense. First of all, everyone interprets the consitution, even those who believe we should limit ourselves to its original meaning. When conservatives say "don;t interpret the constitution" they really mean "don;t interpret it differently from the way I interpret it." Secondly, the success of the constitution lies in the fact that it is a flexible document. It is just plain silly to think that the framers expected the document to be adhered to in a literal word-for-word basis for hundreds of years. Horse****. There is a reason for the Amendment process defined in the Constitution. It is ignorance to believe that the original authors DID NOT intend the Constitution to be adhered to as written or amended http://realclearpolitics.com/Comment..._14_05_TS.html -- Peter Aitken Visit my recipe and kitchen myths page at www.pgacon.com/cooking.htm |
"P Fritz" wrote in message ... "Peter Aitken" wrote in message m... "P Fritz" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message ink.net... snipped No, the states could not do as they please. The states were also bound by the US constitution. And it is a good thing. Nope.......the original intent of the US Constitution was to limit federal powers to those proscribed in the Constitution, as well as defining a few certain rights......everything else was left to the states........it has only been through 200 years of perversion that the country has become federalized and thus corrupted. The fact that several states had official state religions is proof of that. The Constitution was intended to be interpreted as it was written......thus no "Federally established religion" not the perverted "separation of church and state" that exists today The idea that "The Constitution was intended to be interpreted as it was written" is pure nonsense. First of all, everyone interprets the consitution, even those who believe we should limit ourselves to its original meaning. When conservatives say "don;t interpret the constitution" they really mean "don;t interpret it differently from the way I interpret it." Secondly, the success of the constitution lies in the fact that it is a flexible document. It is just plain silly to think that the framers expected the document to be adhered to in a literal word-for-word basis for hundreds of years. Horse****. There is a reason for the Amendment process defined in the Constitution. It is ignorance to believe that the original authors DID NOT intend the Constitution to be adhered to as written or amended http://realclearpolitics.com/Comment..._14_05_TS.html Liberal judges are trying to reshape the Constitution every day. |
"*JimH*" wrote in message ... "P Fritz" wrote in message ... "Peter Aitken" wrote in message m... "P Fritz" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message ink.net... snipped No, the states could not do as they please. The states were also bound by the US constitution. And it is a good thing. Nope.......the original intent of the US Constitution was to limit federal powers to those proscribed in the Constitution, as well as defining a few certain rights......everything else was left to the states........it has only been through 200 years of perversion that the country has become federalized and thus corrupted. The fact that several states had official state religions is proof of that. The Constitution was intended to be interpreted as it was written......thus no "Federally established religion" not the perverted "separation of church and state" that exists today The idea that "The Constitution was intended to be interpreted as it was written" is pure nonsense. First of all, everyone interprets the consitution, even those who believe we should limit ourselves to its original meaning. When conservatives say "don;t interpret the constitution" they really mean "don;t interpret it differently from the way I interpret it." Secondly, the success of the constitution lies in the fact that it is a flexible document. It is just plain silly to think that the framers expected the document to be adhered to in a literal word-for-word basis for hundreds of years. Horse****. There is a reason for the Amendment process defined in the Constitution. It is ignorance to believe that the original authors DID NOT intend the Constitution to be adhered to as written or amended http://realclearpolitics.com/Comment..._14_05_TS.html Liberal judges are trying to reshape the Constitution every day. Exactly.......which is why the liebrals adhere to the "living constitution" idea.......it allows them to bypass the only legitamate process for changing the constitution.........where most of their goals would fail miserably. |
"P Fritz" wrote in message
... "Peter Aitken" wrote in message m... "P Fritz" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message ink.net... snipped No, the states could not do as they please. The states were also bound by the US constitution. And it is a good thing. Nope.......the original intent of the US Constitution was to limit federal powers to those proscribed in the Constitution, as well as defining a few certain rights......everything else was left to the states........it has only been through 200 years of perversion that the country has become federalized and thus corrupted. The fact that several states had official state religions is proof of that. The Constitution was intended to be interpreted as it was written......thus no "Federally established religion" not the perverted "separation of church and state" that exists today The idea that "The Constitution was intended to be interpreted as it was written" is pure nonsense. First of all, everyone interprets the consitution, even those who believe we should limit ourselves to its original meaning. When conservatives say "don;t interpret the constitution" they really mean "don;t interpret it differently from the way I interpret it." Secondly, the success of the constitution lies in the fact that it is a flexible document. It is just plain silly to think that the framers expected the document to be adhered to in a literal word-for-word basis for hundreds of years. Horse****. There is a reason for the Amendment process defined in the Constitution. It is ignorance to believe that the original authors DID NOT intend the Constitution to be adhered to as written or amended Do you believe the following? 1) States should be able to have slavery if they wish. 2) Gun owners should be limited to the types of guns available when the constitution was written - flintlocks. 3) Women and blacks should not be able to vote. 4) Companies can sell horse pee and claim it cures cancer. These are the consequences of your position on the constitution. Do you believe them? Do you think they are consistent with American values? If so then you are at least consistent although a wretched human being. If not then you need to re-examine your position. -- Peter Aitken |
wrote in message oups.com... Peter Aitken wrote: "P Fritz" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message ink.net... snipped No, the states could not do as they please. The states were also bound by the US constitution. And it is a good thing. Nope.......the original intent of the US Constitution was to limit federal powers to those proscribed in the Constitution, as well as defining a few certain rights......everything else was left to the states........it has only been through 200 years of perversion that the country has become federalized and thus corrupted. The fact that several states had official state religions is proof of that. The Constitution was intended to be interpreted as it was written......thus no "Federally established religion" not the perverted "separation of church and state" that exists today The idea that "The Constitution was intended to be interpreted as it was written" is pure nonsense. First of all, everyone interprets the consitution, even those who believe we should limit ourselves to its original meaning. When conservatives say "don;t interpret the constitution" they really mean "don;t interpret it differently from the way I interpret it." Secondly, the success of the constitution lies in the fact that it is a flexible document. It is just plain silly to think that the framers expected the document to be adhered to in a literal word-for-word basis for hundreds of years. I must agree with Peter. If the founders thought that there would never be a need to interpret the Constitution or to resolve differences between opposing interpretations the Constitution would not provide for a Supreme Court. They needed the 3rd leg of government, the Supreme Court, to make sure the other 2 branches did not take liberties with the interpretation of the Constitution. |
None of those items are in the constitution!
The 2nd amendment is the only one that is even close, and it does not specify or limit type of arms. "Peter Aitken" wrote in message m... "P Fritz" wrote in message ... "Peter Aitken" wrote in message m... "P Fritz" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message ink.net... snipped No, the states could not do as they please. The states were also bound by the US constitution. And it is a good thing. Nope.......the original intent of the US Constitution was to limit federal powers to those proscribed in the Constitution, as well as defining a few certain rights......everything else was left to the states........it has only been through 200 years of perversion that the country has become federalized and thus corrupted. The fact that several states had official state religions is proof of that. The Constitution was intended to be interpreted as it was written......thus no "Federally established religion" not the perverted "separation of church and state" that exists today The idea that "The Constitution was intended to be interpreted as it was written" is pure nonsense. First of all, everyone interprets the consitution, even those who believe we should limit ourselves to its original meaning. When conservatives say "don;t interpret the constitution" they really mean "don;t interpret it differently from the way I interpret it." Secondly, the success of the constitution lies in the fact that it is a flexible document. It is just plain silly to think that the framers expected the document to be adhered to in a literal word-for-word basis for hundreds of years. Horse****. There is a reason for the Amendment process defined in the Constitution. It is ignorance to believe that the original authors DID NOT intend the Constitution to be adhered to as written or amended Do you believe the following? 1) States should be able to have slavery if they wish. 2) Gun owners should be limited to the types of guns available when the constitution was written - flintlocks. 3) Women and blacks should not be able to vote. 4) Companies can sell horse pee and claim it cures cancer. These are the consequences of your position on the constitution. Do you believe them? Do you think they are consistent with American values? If so then you are at least consistent although a wretched human being. If not then you need to re-examine your position. -- Peter Aitken |
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 17:11:13 GMT, "Peter Aitken"
wrote: SNIPPO The idea that "The Constitution was intended to be interpreted as it was written" is pure nonsense. First of all, everyone interprets the consitution, even those who believe we should limit ourselves to its original meaning. When conservatives say "don;t interpret the constitution" they really mean "don;t interpret it differently from the way I interpret it." Secondly, the success of the constitution lies in the fact that it is a flexible document. It is just plain silly to think that the framers expected the document to be adhered to in a literal word-for-word basis for hundreds of years. Horse****. There is a reason for the Amendment process defined in the Constitution. It is ignorance to believe that the original authors DID NOT intend the Constitution to be adhered to as written or amended Do you believe the following? 1) States should be able to have slavery if they wish. Of course not. That is because we followed the original Constitution and ratified an Amendment outlawing slavery throughout the United States. 2) Gun owners should be limited to the types of guns available when the constitution was written - flintlocks. Of course not. According to the Constitution we should be allowed to keep and bear "arms". There are no limits to the term "arms" and since the intent was to allow citizens to protect themselves against the government, the citizen was allowed to keep and bear anything available. There was plenty of private ownership of cannon and mortars at the time the Amendment was written - from where do you think the arms for fighting the revolution came? If the Constitution had been properly applied all along we would have passed an amendment to allow arms control long ago when people started owning Browning 50 cals and B-17s. 3) Women and blacks should not be able to vote. Again, we followed the wise rules of the framers and modified the Constitution via Amendment as societal norms changed. We didn't just let 9 unelected dictators make either of those decisions. 4) Companies can sell horse pee and claim it cures cancer. They do it all the time. Don't you get the "natural male enhancement" emails? Besides the Constitution specifically allows the Feds to manage inter-state commerce and if your state is too weak to regulate intra-state commerce then you should be buying horse-pee. These are the consequences of your position on the constitution. Do you believe them? see above Do you think they are consistent with American values? My answers are, yes. If so then you are at least consistent although a wretched human being. If not then you need to re-examine your position. The purpose of the Constitution was to establish rules and limits that had reached the point of consensus in the society at that time. They understood that these items should not change at the whim of the majority, but should freely change when a new consensus was reached. Therefore they provided two separate ways that the people and the states could reach a new consensus and we have done so 26 times (17 times if you count the Bill of Rights only once instead of as 10 Amendments). Thus the process works! If only we let it. Why can't we let it? When the Supreme Court ruled that states and localities could use Eminent Domain to take private property for the benefit of other private purposes, lots of people cried and whined like there was no recourse. The SC didn't say states and localities HAD to take property, just that the US Constitution didn't make it illegal. Each state can still outlaw it in their own Constitution. Each state can pass laws making it illegal for localities to do it. We could all get together and pass an Amendment to the US Constitution if we are so ****ed off about it (and if we have reached the required consensus about it). The US Amendment could either simply outlaw the Feds from doing it or it could outlaw all levels of government from doing it. We are not helpless sheep that need five old people to dictate to us and make up laws because they think they are the right things to do. (For the math challeged it takes 5 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices to dictate new laws as they see fit). They should apply the Constitution and allow us to change it when, and if, we decide it needs it. The Other Dave Hall Dave Hall "The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." -- G.B. Shaw |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:10 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com