>:|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 #5
Message #10430 of 10639
Re: In our email: SNEAKY RHYMECON
Sun Aug 19, 2007 4:42 pm
Rhymecon says: That sadly chosen word "separation" can only work in
both directions; you can't separate the boys from the girls without
separating the girls from the boys. And I've frequently heard that
discussing politics in church violates the separation of church and
state or the pulpit must remain silent on national policy. I've heard
this from the man (and woman) on the street, and from Associate
Justice Hugo Black.
Rhymecon continues: In Justice Hugo Black's famous majority opinion
in Everson vs. Board of Education (1947) we find
Rhymecon: The "establishment of religion" clause of the First
Amendment means at least this: …………No religious organization or group
can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of either a state
or the Federal Government and vice versa.
Rhymecon: Well, he actually wrote it the other way around. But he
added "and vice versa" which clearly means "It's equally true either
way." But what words in Amendment One would even vaguely imply that the
amendment places any kind of limitations on churches? And if it did,
wouldn't the Congress, in passing it, have violated the free exercise
of religion clause of the First Amendment itself?
"jmcmeans" replies
Jim says: Part of Rhymecons problem is that when he says "church"
he means Christianity probably or a specific though unspecified
denomination. Is Mr. Rhymecon actually advocating for the right of
the polygamous offshoot sect of the Mormon church to influence
government and legalize polygamy? Islam? Whirling Dirvishes? I
doubt it. Separation of church and state protects the rights of all
religious groups to wor****p freely, and the right of non-religious
persons to not wor****p as they see fit. There is an incredible
diversity of Christian thought and wor****p style. Allowing the
intermingling of church and state will result in the discrimination
against and persecution of Christians by other Christians, not to
mention discrimination against non-Christians.
Jim continues: It is not clear what Rhymecon is "for" because a lot
depends on his definition of the word "church." In the New
Testament, the word translated as church refers to an assembly of
believers, not the organization or a building. Today, the
word "church" has several meanings. In my Websters Collegiate
Dictionary, church is defined as 1. A building for public wor****p,
2.Church Service, 3. The organization of Christianity as in a
nation, ecclesiatical power or government, 4. The clerical
profession, 5. The Collective body of Christians, etc., etc
Jim says: Many Christians, and other religions including Buddhism
and Islam, do not believe in the concept of "church" as an
ecclesiastical body. Millions of congregational Christians do not
have a Episcopal form of church government, but are independent
congregations. As such, they would be at a disadvantage in
petitioning government in comparison to the more organized churches.
Should the various types of religions be in competition with each
other in attempting to influence legislatures and Congress in order
to advance their distinct dogmas? Isn't this what the founders
wanted to prevent? Is this what Mr. Rhymecon is advocating? Let the
biggest church prevail, or the most corrupt one?
Jim says: If Christians did their Christian duty as individuals
there would be no need for them to petition government to interfere
in matters of personal morality and behavior. For conservatives to
advocate for government to enforce moral values by force of law is a
violation of both conservative and New Testament Christian
principles.
Rhymecon says: Can anyone quote the ****tions of the Constitution
that authorize
government to limit a church's freedoms of speech or the press or
peaceable assembly or petitioning of government?
Jim says: Nothing in the constitution limits the right of Christians
to exercise their freedom of speech or press or peaceable assembly
or to petition government. There are laws that do limit non-profit
tax exempt organizations from "lobbying" but those rules apply to
all non-profit organizations on a non-discriminatory basis.
|
