>:|From: RhymeCon <bob4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>:|Newsgroups:
>:|alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.atheism,alt.religion.christian,alt.politics.bush,alt.society.liberalism
>:|Subject: Re: Egregious errors in civic textbook
>:|Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 05:39:43 -0700 (PDT)
>:|Organization: http://groups.google.com
>:|
>:|RhymeCon wrote:
>:|
>:|
>:|This may be unethical but I'm posting here a reply to Buckeye's thread
>:|("Rhymecon/ McCain") of about May 5 which is addressed specifically to
>:|me but I can't use that thread because I've apparently used up my
>:|quota of 5 groups.
>:|
>:|Well, I for one am opposed to the Separation of Church and State
>:|because it's misleading, confusing, and often interpreted as saying
>:|the exact opposite of what the First Amendment says. The First
>:|Amendment (which, unlike the Sep. of C. & S. is in the U.S.
>:|Constitution) prohibits government from influencing religion but
>:|extends freedom of speech and the press to religion as well as every
>:|other group you can think of. Many people, including the late Assoc.
>:|Justice Hugo Black are of the opinion that churches must not discuss
>:|government. In his infamous Everson opinion of 1947 Hugo said <http://
>:|www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/everson.html> that
>:|"Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly,
>:|participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups
>:|and vice versa". Well, that oddly chosen term "vice versa" means that
>:|Churches can't participate in the affairs of government which is the
>:|duty of all Americans, and can't even say "Don't forget to vote
>:|Tuesday" or in a past era "Outlaw slavery" or "Don't send American
>:|citizens to prison for years just because their parents were Japanese"
>:|or in the present era "Outlaw abortion".
>:|
>:|That last example, BTW, illustrates the stupidity of the Christian
>:|Right for their past efforts in convincing the nation that abortion is
>:|a religious issue in the first place. I don't know that anyone has
>:|even found it in the Bible, and some of the most outspoken anti-
>:|abortionists have been atheists! And people of every state were
>:|opposed to Roe v. Wade until the fundamentalists asserted over and
>:|over again that it's impossible to be anti-abortion unless you're a
>:|born-again Christian, and everyone naturally assumed that those
>:|fundies care more about proselyting than they do about fighting
>:|abortion.
>:|
>:|And interestingly the founding manifest of the Americans United for
>:|Separation of Church and State set one of its primary goals to
>:|OVERTURN that 1947 Everson decision sup****ted by Justice Hugo Black!
>:|
>:|Regards, RhymeCon
>:|http://rhymecon.tripod.com/2/
>:|
PART #7
Message #10631 of 10639
Re: In our email: Separation of Church and State; (Dorlan)
Sat Nov 3, 2007 10:10 am
rhymecon wrote
I don't feel as strongly as he does about the fact that the
words "Separation of C. & S." are not specifically written into the
Constitution. What does it matter as long as the meaning is there?
But it isn't. Article VI and Amendment I specifically constrain
government from interfering in religion and offer no hint that the
reverse is true. But "Separation of C. & S." says the reverse is
true, for "Separation of oil from water" means equally "Separation
of water from oil.
And Hugo (in his Everson opinion) says the reverse is true,
in "Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or
secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations
or groups and vice versa." That vice versa obviously means you can
reverse the nominative from the objective and read it "No religious
organization or group can, openly or secretly, participate in the
affairs of a state or the Federal Government, and vice versa."
Silencing churches from political debate is not only an Article I
violation but the first act of most dictators.
Americans United for C. & S. seem to be a bit ouchy about those two
little words "vice versa," for in that Q. Where is the "separation
of church and state" in the Constitution? they go on to say <Black
wrote "In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment
of religion by law was intended to erect `a wall of separation
between church and state.'" The wall forbids government to actually
or effectively favor one religion over another, favor religion over
non-religion and vice-versa.>
Could this be AU's attempt to present Black's infamous and
flawed "vice versa" phrase in an innocuous sentence that AU has
simply invented?
RhymeCon
|
