On May 8, 6:41=A0am, jls <jls1...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 8, 8:22=A0am,s****hawk<s****h...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 8, 1:02=A0am, buckeye <buckeye...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > US Government Sponsored Prayers and The Pledge of
Allegiancehttp://bbs=
news.net/article.php/20080501163949996
> > > [excerpt]
>
> > > =A0Thursday, May 01 2008 @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
04:39 PM EDT
> > > Edited by: Michael Hess
>
> > > The American Way
>
> > > BBSNews 2008-05-01 -- By Naman Crowe. I've sung this song but I'll
sin=
g it
> > > again. Let's get real. Let's start looking to the day when we can
put =
to
> > > rest the tired tradition of opening Congress with the Daily Prayer
and=
> > > Pledge of Allegiance, on the grounds that they go counter to our
> > > Constitution which requires a separation of Church and State.
>
> > No it doesn't. =A0The Constitution says nothing about separation of
> > Church and State. =A0I looked; it isn't there. =A0In fact, the
> > Constitution specifically states that "Congress shall make no
> > law . . . prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]." =A0Congress
has
> > no authority to prohibit anyone from engaging in religious exercises,
> > in public, in private, in prison, or even in Congress itself. Free men
> > are entitled to pray as they please--even congressmen.
>
> Ah, but my grubby-fingered little revisionist, you should read the
> judicial gloss on the Establishment Clause and Jefferson's "Letter to
> the Baptists at Danbury."
>
Jefferson's use of the phrase "wall of separation between Church &
State" in a private letter does not, and cannot, change the meaning
of the plain language of the First Amendment. Your interpretation of
Jefferson's metaphor would mean that Congress is forbidden to apply
religious moral standards in enacting legislation--there exists a wall
which Congress must not breach. Any congressman who bases his vote on
religious teachings of morality and civility would be in violation of
the Constitution.
That's utter nonsense. If there is such a "wall," it contains a one-
way gate: Congress cannot influence religions, but religious moral
teachings can--and should--influence Congress. Our present Congress,
having relinquished their authority to declare war to a warmongering
president and funding years of random killings in the middle east,
would do well to reread the Ten Commandments.
> You've even revised the Establishment Clause, which reads, "Congress
> shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." =A0And you
> obviously do not know what the word "respecting" means in the context
> of the Establishment Clause. =A0
Why don't you tell us what "respecting" meant at the time the
constitution was accepted by all the states. Then you can tell use
what the word "an" means. As I read the language, Congress can make
no laws respecting "an establishment of religion," i.e., a religious
establishment, any religious establishment, whether it's the Catholic
Church or David Koresh's cult.
But more im****tant, the Amendment goes on to say Congress cannot make
laws respecting the free exercise of religion, whether it's the
Catholic Church or David Koresh's cult. Everyone keeps referring to
the "Establishment Clause," forgetting the "Free Exercise Clause."
Reading the clauses together, the meaning of the Amendment become
clear: the United States federal government has no authority over
religion--period.
Jefferson and Madison and their
> extensive writings on the subject could probably help you, but you
> have been reading sleazy David Barton's phony Jefferson and Madison
> quotes.
I suggest you try reading the First Amendment a few times and try to
cleanse your mind of opinions given by others. Instead of relying on
others, go right to the source. Read the Amendment and try to figure
it out for yourself.
|
