Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbluth@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>:|On May 9, 9:51 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>:|> s****hawk <s****h...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>:|> >On May 8, 3:01 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>:|> >> s****hawk<s****h...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>:|> >> >> You are contriving to give primary im****tance to the Free
Exercise
>:|> >> >> Clause when the Establishment Clause provides the appropriate
>:|> >> >> guidance, that is, to prevent official prayers in Congress.
>:|>
>:|> >> >No one recites "official" prayers in Congress: there is no
"official"
>:|> >> >prayer. Congress has not and cannot designate an official
prayer.
>:|> >> >But it does not follow that Congress as a body cannot authorize a
>:|> >> >minister to lead the Congress in a prayer. Congress, just like
all
>:|> >> >citizens of the United States, has the Constitutional right to
the
>:|> >> >free exercise of religion.
>:|>
>:|> >> Congress is not a citizen; it is a part of the Federal government.
>:|>
>:|> >> Congress has no Constitutional rights. It has specific
constitutional
>:|> >> powers enumerated in the Constitution. None of those powers
includes
>:|> >> authorizing a minister to lead the Congress in a prayer.
>:|>
>:|> >No where does the Constitution prohibit the members of Congress from
>:|> >voluntarily joining together as a body in prayer or from inviting
>:|> >recognized religious leaders to lead the prayer.
>:|>
>:|> Outside a session of Congress, nowhere. Inside a session of
Congress,
>:|> in the Establishment clause and the religious test clause.
>:|
>:|SCOTUS strognly implied otherwise in Marsh.
>:|
Marsh was a "political" decision. It is seriously flawed. Hopefully in
time
Newdow or another will be instrumental in getting it overturned
Revisiting Marsh v. Chambers
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/marshchm.htm
>:|> >The First Amendment states only that
>:|> >Congress shall make no laws respecting (meaning: "related to") a
>:|> >religious establishment--that's it.
>:|
>:|That interpretation of "respecting" makes no sense either in the
>:|historical context of the amendment or common sense.
I would be curious to see what you base the above on.
What historical context?
Whose and what common sense?
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why
"a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v.
Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
|
