🚀 go-pugleaf

"Me" <dove@spirit.god> wrote in message
news:989cia0gj2@enews2.newsguy.com...
> x-no-archive:yes
>
> >"These personal attacks are irrelevant to this First Amendment
constitutional
> issue of
> >separation of church and state," he said.
>
> "Separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution.
Instead, it
> says that Congress cannot pass any laws regarding the establishment of
religion
> nor prohibit the free exercise thereof.
>
> The Constitution doesn't say anything specific about whether government
can
> "exercise religion", but the fact that the first Supreme Court session
began with
> a four-hour prayer service makes me think that perhaps it can.
>
You don't mind being wrong, do you?  A legal scholar you are not.  Don't try
to extrapolate based on limited data.  Even the most wreckless statistician
will tell you that.  Moreover, you are a theist and, therefore, can't
possibly have the equipment required for logical thought.

> Dove
>
>
>

sorry Luha,

But Dove is correct.  Where in the constitution does it mention seperation
of church and state?

Maybe it would be a good time to do some reading:

http://constitution.by.net/

theist or not, it's not in the constitution.

"news" <nospam@nospam.abc> wrote:

>sorry Luha,
>
>But Dove is correct.  Where in the constitution does it mention seperation
>of church and state?
>
>Maybe it would be a good time to do some reading:
>
>http://constitution.by.net/
>
>theist or not, it's not in the constitution.
>


Lots of key concepts aren't in the CotUS by name; there is nothing
called "separation of powers" nor are the words "trial by one's peers"
explicitly mentioned. Does that mean they don't exist?




--  
Landis Ragon (dS = dq/T)
Chief Elf in the Toy Factory.
"I've got a little list--I've got a little list
Of society offenders who might well be underground,
     And who never would be missed--who never would be missed!"
                             -- Gilbert and Sullivan : "The Mikado"

"Me" <dove@spirit.god> wrote in <989cia0gj2@enews2.newsguy.com>:

>x-no-archive:yes
>
>>"These personal attacks are irrelevant to this First Amendment
>>constitutional 
>issue of
>>separation of church and state," he said.
>
>"Separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution. 
>Instead, it says that Congress cannot pass any laws regarding the
>establishment of religion nor prohibit the free exercise thereof.
>
>The Constitution doesn't say anything specific about whether government
>can "exercise religion", but the fact that the first Supreme Court session
>began with a four-hour prayer service makes me think that perhaps it can.

Individuals can practice religion anytime they want, even if they work IN 
govt. But govt practicing religion would require govt to pass laws regarding 
the establishment of religion. Sorry.

-- 
- Melissa in SW Denver  
Seeking full time job - west side of Denver. 
http://www.dimensional.com/~melissa/resume.htm
http://dimensional.com/~melissa/melissa.htm
"A Bill Of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every
government on earth, general or particular, and what no just
government should refuse, or rest on inference." -Thomas Jefferson
http://www.UPAlliance.org/

news wrote:
> 
> sorry Luha,
> 
> But Dove is correct.  Where in the constitution does it mention seperation
> of church and state?
> 
> Maybe it would be a good time to do some reading:
> 
> http://constitution.by.net/
> 
> theist or not, it's not in the constitution.

That's correct, the phrase "separation of church and state" is NOT in the Constitution. 
But guess what?  Neither is any of the following -

right to privacy
right to a fair trial
freedom of expression
separation of powers
and, last but not least,
FREEDOM OF RELIGION

Would you assert that nobody has a right to freedom of religion?  Do none of those 
others deserve to be called Constitutional?

The simple fact is, all of those are Constitutional principals.  They're not an explicit 
part of the Constitution, but they're undeniably a part of our legal heritage.  Plus, 
its just a lot easier and clearer to say "separation of church and state" than "Congress 
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."  Likewise, its easier and 
clearer to say "I have a right to freedom of religion" than "I have a right to free 
exercise thereof."

If we were limited to the exact text of the Constitution, what we are doing now would 
not be protected.  This is not "speech" in the basic understanding of the word.  The 
Supreme Court had to interpret "speech" to mean the written as well as spoken word.  
This was by design of the Framers who wrote the Constitution with intentially vague 
words.  After all, who among us knows with absolute certainty what a "reasonable" search 
or seizure is?  Who even can define "search" for all times?

Next time you're tempted to scold someone for using "separation of church and state," 
just remember, by that standard, no one has a right to freedom of religion either.

hands

"Me" <dove@spirit.god> wrote in message
news:989cia0gj2@enews2.newsguy.com...
> x-no-archive:yes
>
> >"These personal attacks are irrelevant to this First
Amendment constitutional
> issue of
> >separation of church and state," he said.
>
> "Separation of church and state" does not appear in the
Constitution.

The words "original sin" don't appear in the Bible. So by
your argument, there must be so such thing as Original Sin.

>  Instead, it
> says that Congress cannot pass any laws regarding the
establishment of religion
> nor prohibit the free exercise thereof.

And this concept is known as the "Separation of Church and
State".  Government may not establish religion. By posting
the Ten Commandments on government property, the government
is attempting to establish religion.

Would you like churches to be taxed? No? Then be happy about
the Separation of Church and State.

--
Chris Nelson

AUDIO VIDEO DISCO - "I hear, I see, I learn"

"news" <nospam@nospam.abc> wrote in message
news:SmYp6.375985$ge4.132102388@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com...
> sorry Luha,
>
> But Dove is correct.  Where in the constitution does it
mention seperation
> of church and state?

The First Amendment.

A concept doesn't have to be named in order to exist. Kind
of like the concept of "original sin" in the Bible. Where in
the Bible does it say "original sin"? Or "Immaculate
Conception"? Or, "Creationism"?

--
Chris Nelson

AUDIO VIDEO DISCO - "I hear, I see, I learn"

news (nospam@nospam.abc) wrote: 

> But Dove is correct.  Where in the constitution does it mention seperation
> of church and state?

Look in first amendment. The phrase itself is not used, but 
"separation of church and state" is just another way of saying 
what the authors intended. Compare to "freedom of religion."


> Maybe it would be a good time to do some reading:

I've already done a great deal of reading on this issue. Have 
you? I mean, have you gone straight to the historical sources? Or 
have you relied on glosses and commentary?


--------------
Brian E. Clark
brian -at- telerama -dot- com

Cats do stumble, yes, but no cat has yet
acknowledged it.

"news" <nospam@nospam.abc> wrote in message
news:SmYp6.375985$ge4.132102388@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com...
> sorry Luha,
>
> But Dove is correct.  Where in the constitution does it mention seperation
> of church and state?
>
> Maybe it would be a good time to do some reading:
>
> http://constitution.by.net/
>
> theist or not, it's not in the constitution.
>
Gee, you call yourself news?  Isn't that a bit ironic?

Where, lamebrain, did I state that the exact words "separation of church and
state" were included verbatim in the consititution?  Go on, read it again,
I'll wait.  Dee-dee-do-do...........

Nowhere?  And I'm the one who's supposed to do some reading here?

Oh, I get it.  You're confused.  Most people in today's society use the
colloquialism "separation of church and state" to encompass the issue of a
government biasing the religious life of a community.  Therefore, great
thinkers like you think that these exact words must appear in the original
consitution of said government of the concept does not exist.

Why don't you and dove go finish out your grade school educations?  Like I
said in my first post, you are theists and, therefore, don't possess the
tools for this type of "deep thinking" (such as it is).

Me wrote:
> 
> x-no-archive:yes
> 
> >Lots of key concepts aren't in the CotUS by name; there is nothing
> >called "separation of powers" nor are the words "trial by one's peers"
> >explicitly mentioned. Does that mean they don't exist?
> 
> Separation of church and state is a political philosophy based on a
> misinterpretation of Thomas Jefferson, who later presided as governor, I believe,
> of a state that used the Bible as a text book in its schools.

By your logic, we should still have slavery.  After all, that's the way it was done when 
the Framers wrote the Constitution.

> Trying to get "separation of church and state" out of "Congress shall pass no law
> regarding the establishment of religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof" is
> a lot harder than getting "trial by one's peers" or "separation of powers" out of
> the relevant phrases in the Constitution.

Hard for you maybe.  As the saying goes, "There are none so blind as those who will not 
see."
 
> What you are doing is making an uneven analogy, in that your phrases are clearly
> in synch with the Framer's intent, while reams of documentation exist showing that
> the way our government functioned in its earliest history did not exhibit anything
> even close to separation of church and state.

Big deal!  So they did it wrong back then.  That doesn't make it right today.
 
> Instead, as I mentioned earlier, the first Supreme Court began with a four-hour
> religious service, and the Capitol building was once used for weekly CHRISTIAN
> church services.  Even to this day, we have a chaplain on the Federal payroll, and
> prayer in Congress (to the best of my knowledge anyway).

The idea of chaplains in Congress was disapproved by many of the Framers.  Again, just 
because some people chose to ignore the Constitution then doesn't mean its right.
 
> How anyone can justify separation of church and state as exists today based on the
> these and thousands of other similar examples of the early history of our
> government simply defies comprehension.  In reality, it has to do with deeply
> ingrained and reflexive bias against religion- nothing, more, and nothing less.
> If such people would simply admit this, I would have a great more respect for
> them.

Like you don't have a deeply ingrained and reflexive bias against anybody who disagrees 
with religion?  If there truly was a bias against religion, it seems to me that religion 
would've been done away with completely in this country a long time ago.  Truth be told, 
the only thing separationists want to do away with is government sponsorship, 
encouragement, and favoritism towards one religion or religion in general.  You mistake 
a desire for government neutrality as hostility.  A common error of anti-separationists.
 
> We actually have separation of church of state in this country because we have
> evolved from a religious to a secular society, not because separation of church
> and state is what the Framers wanted.
> 
> I once saw a THREE-HOUR video on the subject, and you would be amazed at the truth
> beyond the bogus claim that the Framers wanted an impregnable wall of separation
> between church and state.  For starters, what they really wanted was to avoid any
> one Christian denomination being sponsored by the state or federal government,
> i.e. a state religion.

A THREE-HOUR video?  Well, I guess that makes you THE expert.  How can anybody possibly 
argue against such staunch credentials?  Well gee, I can.  Obviously the video didn't 
bother checking the historical facts otherwise it would've mentioned that the Framers 
expressly rejected an amendment that would've only prohibited a "state religion" or a 
"national church."

>  The separation of church and state doctrine goes steadily
> and precipitiously downhill from there, including the part where one state's
> constitution was quoted as saying that officers of the state's government should
> be believers in Jesus Christ, and the fact that Thomas Jefferson ended his
> presidential letters with "in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ...".

Even if it were true that Jefferson signed off that way (highly unlikely since he was 
NOT a Christian), that's the action of a private individual, not a government action.  
Just like today when every politician ends a speech with "God bless America."  That's 
NOT an official government action or statement, just a person speaking his/her mind.
 
> There's not much separation of church and state in that move, is there?

Plenty, as explained above.
 
> Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has the power, literally at its whim, to twist
> the Constitution to conform to whatever political or social agenda it wants- a
> fact that many liberals bemoaned when the SC stopped the Florida recount in the
> recent presidential election.  They were not singing the same bluesy tune when the
> same court earlier ruled in their favor in an abortion case that upheld the basis
> of  Roe v. Wade.
> 
> Obviously, people want the Constitution to be interpreted in their favor, which
> goes against the grain of the doctrine of strict constructionism or literal
> interpretation.  If this doctrine were followed, it would eliminate a lot of
> divisiveness regarding constitutional issues, and to me, makes plain common sense.

You used the key word there - interpreted.  The SC interprets the Constitution, it 
doesn't just read the words verbatim and stop there.  The Constitution was intentionally 
left vague so such interpretation could take place over the course of many years.  Its a 
living, breathing document, not a static piece of paper forever cast in the terms and 
situations of its enception.
 
> Judges hallucinating rights in the Constitution is a form of judicial activism or
> legislating from the bench, and both are destructive to our democracy and the
> Constitutional foundations of our form of government.

No, its INTERPRETATION as intended.  There has never been one ounce of legislation from 
the bench.  It has never made law, only upheld or declared unconstitutional those acts 
passed by Congress.
 
> The Constitution-distorting power of the SC has created a paradox- a form of
> government supposedly based strictly on a document that is the highest law of the
> land that has nonetheless been interpreted in contradictory ways throughour
> history (e.g. Dred Scott vs. modern civil rights rulings).

Yeah, because times change.
 
> The SC, in essence, is rewriting or amending the Constitution on a regular basis
> without the consent of the governed, and without even the consent of the Congress.

I wonder why.  Hmmm, maybe because the Constitution grants it that power.  They are the 
"final arbiters," not the people and certainly not Congress.  Without such, every law 
and every right would be just a matter of popularity.  In other words, a tyranny of the 
majority.
 
> The Constitution has become like the Bible- it is almost impossible to get a
> majority to consistently agree on what it means.
> 
> The Supreme Court and the rest of the federal judiciary are the fatal flaw in our
> system of government that has often given rise to tyranny, i.e. the subjugation of
> the clear will of the governed to the whims of the judicial elite.  In some cases,
> all it takes is one federal judge to invalidate a law agreed to by the majority of
> people in an entire state, and if the judge were of a different political
> persuasion, it is obvious that the ruling could have easily gone the other way.
> This total breakdown of judicial objectivity and impartiality is truly
> frightening.

To the contrary, judicial review is the one component of our society that has prevented 
tyranny.  As stated, without such review, "the will of the people" would simply be a 
popularity contest.  Whoever gets majority plus one wins.  Not a great way to live 
unless you always happen to be in the majority.

Thankfully, there is still one judge who will stand up, resist the political flavor of 
the moment and preserve rights that have been abolished by a tyrannical majority.  You 
call it a breakdown in objectivity and impartiality, but it is just the opposite.  A 
judge who rules a law that subjects all but one religion to minority status 
unconstitutional is being impartial, especially if the judge is of that preferred faith. 
That's judicial review at its best.

You want a loss of impartiality, then you need look no further than the USSC's ruling in 
Bush v. Gore.  Those 5 (in)justices always supported states' rights.  Suddenly they 
don't.  Even conservative legal scholars had trouble with that case though the liked the 
outcome.

> Perhaps we need a "judicial Congress" that consists of several hundred judges to
> rule on the validity of legislation with long-term and sweeping implications for
> the entire population of our country.  It would also be nice if we could easily
> remove federal judges whose decisions clearly conflict with what the Constitution
> says.  As it stands now, doing so is nearly impossible.

This is truly amazing.  You want "strict constructionists" on the court, yet you want to 
go against what the Constitution says.  Which is it?  Do you want to "strictly construe" 
what it says or change it to meet your ideals?  In case you're not aware, a "judicial 
Congress" would be unconstitutional.  And removing judges for "bad decisions" would be 
equally repugnant to the Constitution.  I guess you're just not as serious about 
upholding the Constitution as you claim to be.

> Dove

hands

"Me" <dove@spirit.god> wrote in <98c97l010nk@enews1.newsguy.com>:

>x-no-archive:yes
>
>>Lots of key concepts aren't in the CotUS by name; there is nothing
>>called "separation of powers" nor are the words "trial by one's peers"
>>explicitly mentioned. Does that mean they don't exist?
>
>
>Separation of church and state is a political philosophy based on a
>misinterpretation of Thomas Jefferson, who later presided as governor, I
>believe, of a state that used the Bible as a text book in its schools.
>
>Trying to get "separation of church and state" out of "Congress shall pass
>no law regarding the establishment of religion or prohibit the free
>exercise thereof" is a lot harder than getting "trial by one's peers" or
>"separation of powers" out of the relevant phrases in the Constitution.
...

Maybe we need another amendment saying exactly that, then. Mixing religion 
and politics is a recipe for nothing but oppression.

-- 
- Melissa in SW Denver  
Seeking full time job - west side of Denver. 
http://www.dimensional.com/~melissa/resume.htm
http://dimensional.com/~melissa/melissa.htm
"A Bill Of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every
government on earth, general or particular, and what no just
government should refuse, or rest on inference." -Thomas Jefferson
http://www.UPAlliance.org/

Captain wrote:
[snip]

> When I was in high school in the mid 60s the public school system
> students taking speech had to memorize the Christmas passages from the
> Bible and participate in a voice choir were these passages were
> recited.  And of course no one saw anything wrong with the local
> preachers delivering an invocation and all the students reciting the
> Lord's prayer at public high school assemblies.

Well, yes, some people saw something wrong with it...but Jews were expected to stand
respectfully with their mouths shut. Even Catholics were stared at because they didn't
end it with the same lines. Separation of church and state? There wasn't even a
DISTINCTION. In a history class, you might get "Who was the 16th President?" and "What
kind of wood was the Ark made of?" on the same test. (This was about 5 years before
you.)

rj

On Sat, 10 Mar 2001 16:45:45 GMT, MelissaLiberty@NO-PRIVATE.org
(Melissa Liberty) wrote:

>"Me" <dove@spirit.god> wrote in <98c97l010nk@enews1.newsguy.com>:
>
>>x-no-archive:yes
>>
>>>Lots of key concepts aren't in the CotUS by name; there is nothing
>>>called "separation of powers" nor are the words "trial by one's peers"
>>>explicitly mentioned. Does that mean they don't exist?
>>
>>
>>Separation of church and state is a political philosophy based on a
>>misinterpretation of Thomas Jefferson, who later presided as governor, I
>>believe, of a state that used the Bible as a text book in its schools.
>>
>>Trying to get "separation of church and state" out of "Congress shall pass
>>no law regarding the establishment of religion or prohibit the free
>>exercise thereof" is a lot harder than getting "trial by one's peers" or
>>"separation of powers" out of the relevant phrases in the Constitution.
>...
>
>Maybe we need another amendment saying exactly that, then. Mixing religion 
>and politics is a recipe for nothing but oppression.

Since the Constitution also forbids the establishment of religion,
another amendment is not required.  The word separation is not
included, nor is it required; "Congress shall make no law....." is
quite sufficient.



>
>-- 
>- Melissa in SW Denver  
>Seeking full time job - west side of Denver. 
>http://www.dimensional.com/~melissa/resume.htm
>http://dimensional.com/~melissa/melissa.htm
>"A Bill Of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every
>government on earth, general or particular, and what no just
>government should refuse, or rest on inference." -Thomas Jefferson
>http://www.UPAlliance.org/
>
>
>
>

Thomas P.

 

 

On Sat, 10 Mar 2001 09:26:43 -0700, Captain <Captain@jJohn.Smith>
wrote:

>On Thu, 8 Mar 2001 19:46:20 -0500, "Me" <dove@spirit.god> wrote:
>
>>x-no-archive:yes
>>
>>>"These personal attacks are irrelevant to this First Amendment constitutional
>>issue of
>>>separation of church and state," he said.
>>
>>"Separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution.  Instead, it
>>says that Congress cannot pass any laws regarding the establishment of religion
>>nor prohibit the free exercise thereof.
>
>And this did not limit the states until the late 1960s and early 1970s
>when the ACLU convinced the courts the 14th amendment made the 1st
>amendment  binding on the states.
>
>When I was in high school in the mid 60s the public school system
>students taking speech had to memorize the Christmas passages from the
>Bible and participate in a voice choir were these passages were
>recited.  And of course no one saw anything wrong with the local
>preachers delivering an invocation and all the students reciting the
>Lord's prayer at public high school assemblies.

Lots of people saw something wrong with it.  Where do you think the
changes came from?   




>
>>
>>The Constitution doesn't say anything specific about whether government can
>>"exercise religion", but the fact that the first Supreme Court session began with
>>a four-hour prayer service makes me think that perhaps it can.
>>
>>Dove
>>
>>
>

Thomas P.

 

 

Knock it off...you refer to only the hypocrites...not the true Christians.

--
YBone
Halfordian Golfer & Urban Forager
It is impossible to catch and release a wild trout.
A cash flow runs through it.
Guilt  replaced the creel.
Catch and release is the false 'profit' of the sport fishing 'industry'.

"YBone" <walker@indra.com> wrote in message
news:takr4s6hsa4m8a@corp.supernews.com...
> Knock it off...you refer to only the hypocrites...not the true Christians.

What exactly is a true xian and how could a person recognize one?

>
> --
> YBone
> Halfordian Golfer & Urban Forager
> It is impossible to catch and release a wild trout.
> A cash flow runs through it.
> Guilt  replaced the creel.
> Catch and release is the false 'profit' of the sport fishing 'industry'.
>
>

--
Woden

"religion is a socio-political institution for the control of
people's thoughts, lives, and actions; based on
ancient myths and superstitions perpetrated through
generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."

"True Christians?....."

For your perusal:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/christ.htm  .......and from this page:

"Christianity started out in Palestine as a fellowship; it moved to Greece
and became a philosophy; it moved to Italy and became an institution; it
moved to Europe and became a culture; it came to America and became an
enterprise." Sam Pascoe, American scholar.

 "Christianity is not a religion; it is a relationship with Jesus Christ."
Anonymous posting to a Christian mailing list.

I recently received a mass mailing that was mailed from a traditional
Christian who said that "...the separation of church and state must be torn
down...so we can pray for the United States of America..."  I had no idea
that our laws were that inclusive.
To anyone who would fashion America into a Christian nation, they might want
to consider that:

The fastest growing religion in the world is not Christianity.
The fastest growing religion in the U.S. is not a form of traditional
Christianity.  We might wish to be careful with how we legislate. We may get
what we do not want.
.....Ted

"YBone" <walker@indra.com> wrote in message
news:takr4s6hsa4m8a@corp.supernews.com...
> Knock it off...you refer to only the hypocrites...not the true Christians.
>
> --
> YBone
> Halfordian Golfer & Urban Forager
> It is impossible to catch and release a wild trout.
> A cash flow runs through it.
> Guilt  replaced the creel.
> Catch and release is the false 'profit' of the sport fishing 'industry'.
>
>

YBone wrote:

> Knock it off...you refer to only the hypocrites...not the true Christians.

Of course it wasn't the true Christians. It was the ones in charge.

rj

"YBone" <walker@indra.com> wrote in <takr4s6hsa4m8a@corp.supernews.com>:

>Knock it off...you refer to only the hypocrites...not the true Christians.

Well that could be debated from now 'till doomsday. True Christians are you 
and your friends and family, and everyone else is something else.

-- 
- Melissa in SW Denver  
Seeking full time job - west side of Denver. 
http://www.dimensional.com/~melissa/resume.htm
http://dimensional.com/~melissa/melissa.htm
"A Bill Of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every
government on earth, general or particular, and what no just
government should refuse, or rest on inference." -Thomas Jefferson
http://www.UPAlliance.org/

"Woden" <woden@charter.net> wrote in <tal0h880e5coa1@corp.supernews.com>:

>
>"YBone" <walker@indra.com> wrote in message
>news:takr4s6hsa4m8a@corp.supernews.com...
>> Knock it off...you refer to only the hypocrites...not the true Christians.
>
>What exactly is a true xian and how could a person recognize one?

I can always tell them by them not bleating and braying loudly about it in 
public and because they walk the walk instead of spouting the talk.

-- 
- Melissa in SW Denver  
Seeking full time job - west side of Denver. 
http://www.dimensional.com/~melissa/resume.htm
http://dimensional.com/~melissa/melissa.htm
"A Bill Of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every
government on earth, general or particular, and what no just
government should refuse, or rest on inference." -Thomas Jefferson
http://www.UPAlliance.org/

Melissa Liberty wrote:

> "Woden" <woden@charter.net> wrote in <tal0h880e5coa1@corp.supernews.com>:
>
> >
> >"YBone" <walker@indra.com> wrote in message
> >news:takr4s6hsa4m8a@corp.supernews.com...
> >> Knock it off...you refer to only the hypocrites...not the true Christians.
> >
> >What exactly is a true xian and how could a person recognize one?
>
> I can always tell them by them not bleating and braying loudly about it in
> public and because they walk the walk instead of spouting the talk.

Hmmm....When do you plan to become a true libertarian?

Maraya

"Melissa Liberty" <MelissaLiberty@NO-PRIVATE.org> wrote in message
news:Zgxq6.72$el5.3783@wormhole.dimensional.com...
> "Woden" <woden@charter.net> wrote in <tal0h880e5coa1@corp.supernews.com>:
>
> >
> >"YBone" <walker@indra.com> wrote in message
> >news:takr4s6hsa4m8a@corp.supernews.com...
> >> Knock it off...you refer to only the hypocrites...not the true
Christians.
> >
> >What exactly is a true xian and how could a person recognize one?
>
> I can always tell them by them not bleating and braying loudly about it in
> public and because they walk the walk instead of spouting the talk.
>
>

Unfortunately, some of them tell me that the bleating and braying is in fact
the mark of a true xian.  There doesn't seem to be much consistency on the
part of xians to define what xian means.

--
Woden

"religion is a socio-political institution for the control of
people's thoughts, lives, and actions; based on
ancient myths and superstitions perpetrated through
generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."

On Thu, 8 Mar 2001 19:46:20 -0500, "Me" <dove@spirit.god> wrote:

>x-no-archive:yes
>
>>"These personal attacks are irrelevant to this First Amendment constitutional
>issue of
>>separation of church and state," he said.
>
>"Separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution.  Instead, it
>says that Congress cannot pass any laws regarding the establishment of religion
>nor prohibit the free exercise thereof.
>
>The Constitution doesn't say anything specific about whether government can
>"exercise religion", but the fact that the first Supreme Court session began with
>a four-hour prayer service makes me think that perhaps it can.
>
>Dove
>

There are many things in the constitution that are subject to
interpetation.  Wouldn't it be nice if there was one final authority
as to which interpetation is correct.  A court, perhaps, where some
men who were experts at judging such things could sit and decide
whether such things really were implied by the constitution.  We could
call it something like .....hmmmmm....the Supreme Court.   Just a
thought.


Flannel

Atheist #1777
Decon#50

Melissa Liberty wrote:
> Well that could be debated from now 'till doomsday. True Christians are you
> and your friends and family, and everyone else is something else.

Not me or my family, dude. A couple of friends, yes.

-- 
The Great Hairy One,
BAAWA

====================================
One does well to put on gloves when
reading the New Testament. The
proximity of so much uncleanliness
almost forces one to do this.
              -- Friedrich Nietzsche

(Remove spam block to email)

The Great Hairy One <"the_great_hairy"@yahoo(yahoo!).com.au> wrote in
<3aaabe95$0$25501$7f31c96c@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au>: 

>Melissa Liberty wrote:
>> Well that could be debated from now 'till doomsday. True Christians are
>> you and your friends and family, and everyone else is something else.
>
>Not me or my family, dude. A couple of friends, yes.

I understand, being a born again heathen myself. :-)

-- 
- Melissa in SW Denver  
Seeking full time job - west side of Denver. 
http://www.dimensional.com/~melissa/resume.htm
http://dimensional.com/~melissa/melissa.htm
"A Bill Of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every
government on earth, general or particular, and what no just
government should refuse, or rest on inference." -Thomas Jefferson
http://www.UPAlliance.org/

"Woden" <woden@charter.net> wrote in <talbaff564hm13@corp.supernews.com>:

>"Melissa Liberty" <MelissaLiberty@NO-PRIVATE.org> wrote in message
>news:Zgxq6.72$el5.3783@wormhole.dimensional.com...
>> "Woden" <woden@charter.net> wrote in <tal0h880e5coa1@corp.supernews.com>:
>>
>> >
>> >"YBone" <walker@indra.com> wrote in message
>> >news:takr4s6hsa4m8a@corp.supernews.com...
>> >> Knock it off...you refer to only the hypocrites...not the true
>Christians.
>> >
>> >What exactly is a true xian and how could a person recognize one?
>>
>> I can always tell them by them not bleating and braying loudly about it in
>> public and because they walk the walk instead of spouting the talk.
>>
>>
>
>Unfortunately, some of them tell me that the bleating and braying is in fact
>the mark of a true xian.  There doesn't seem to be much consistency on the
>part of xians to define what xian means.

True. 

-- 
- Melissa in SW Denver  
Seeking full time job - west side of Denver. 
http://www.dimensional.com/~melissa/resume.htm
http://dimensional.com/~melissa/melissa.htm
"A Bill Of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every
government on earth, general or particular, and what no just
government should refuse, or rest on inference." -Thomas Jefferson
http://www.UPAlliance.org/

In article <3aaabe95$0$25501$7f31c96c@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au>, yahoo!
says...
>
>Melissa Liberty wrote:
>> Well that could be debated from now 'till doomsday. True Christians are you
>> and your friends and family, and everyone else is something else.
>
>Not me or my family, dude. A couple of friends, yes.

Indeed. Mom has a bit of a Pagan point of view (believes there's some sort of a
"spirit of nature" kind of thing), but dad's an atheist through and through.

>
>-- 
>The Great Hairy One,
>BAAWA
>
>====================================
>One does well to put on gloves when
>reading the New Testament. The
>proximity of so much uncleanliness
>almost forces one to do this.
>              -- Friedrich Nietzsche
>
>(Remove spam block to email)

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo and EAC Spellcaster
#1557
Delighted Member of SMASH

> > Knock it off...you refer to only the hypocrites...not the true
Christians.

EA:
And no "True Scotsman" (tm) would ever eat his porrige with sugar in it,
right? Of course not.


--
Evil Atheist, aa #1917
http://members.nbci.com/grgaud/

Luha wrote:
---snipped--- 
> Why don't you and dove go finish out your grade school educations?  Like I
> said in my first post, you are theists and, therefore, don't possess the
> tools for this type of "deep thinking" (such as it is).

His/Her education as far as Constitutional and American history seems
quite adequate. To assert that "theism" or any other form of spiritual,
philosophical or religous adherence precludes or limits any kind of
"deep thinking" is sheer idiocy.  Seems its you who fail to appreciate
manifold modalities of thought and consideration. Trying to make
yourself feel superior in some way?  You haven't demostrated any "tools"
necessary to assess the intellectual functioning or capacity of other. 
This makes your assertion idle speculation or outright stupidity.  Don't
be so intellectually lazy.

NM

Robibnikoff <Robibnikoff_member@newsranger.com> wrote in
<CSBq6.2006$54.2173@www.newsranger.com>: 

>In article <3aaabe95$0$25501$7f31c96c@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au>, yahoo!
>says...
>>
>>Melissa Liberty wrote:
>>> Well that could be debated from now 'till doomsday. True Christians are
>>> you and your friends and family, and everyone else is something else.
>>
>>Not me or my family, dude. A couple of friends, yes.
>
>Indeed. Mom has a bit of a Pagan point of view (believes there's some sort
>of a "spirit of nature" kind of thing), but dad's an atheist through and
>through. 

"There is no conclusive evidence of life after death. But there is no 
evidence of any sort against it. Soon enough you will know. So why fret about 
it?" - Robert A. Heinlein

-- 
- Melissa in SW Denver  
Seeking full time job - west side of Denver. 
http://www.dimensional.com/~melissa/resume.htm
http://dimensional.com/~melissa/melissa.htm
"A Bill Of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every
government on earth, general or particular, and what no just
government should refuse, or rest on inference." -Thomas Jefferson
http://www.UPAlliance.org/
"Yiddin, learn tzoo shissin!" http://www.gunowners.org/wv07.htm

Melissa Liberty wrote:
> "There is no conclusive evidence of life after death. But there is no
> evidence of any sort against it. Soon enough you will know. So why fret about
> it?" - Robert A. Heinlein

I like that quote.

-- 
The Great Hairy One,
BAAWA

====================================
One does well to put on gloves when
reading the New Testament. The
proximity of so much uncleanliness
almost forces one to do this.
              -- Friedrich Nietzsche

(Remove spam block to email)

The Great Hairy One <"the_great_hairy"@yahoo(yahoo!).com.au> wrote in
<3aac1a1f$0$25484$7f31c96c@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au>: 

>Melissa Liberty wrote:
>> "There is no conclusive evidence of life after death. But there is no
>> evidence of any sort against it. Soon enough you will know. So why fret
>> about it?" - Robert A. Heinlein
>
>I like that quote.

I've liked it for maybe 30 years.

-- 
- Melissa in SW Denver  
Seeking full time job - west side of Denver. 
http://www.dimensional.com/~melissa/resume.htm
http://dimensional.com/~melissa/melissa.htm
"A Bill Of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every
government on earth, general or particular, and what no just
government should refuse, or rest on inference." -Thomas Jefferson
http://www.UPAlliance.org/
"Yiddin, learn tzoo shissin!" http://www.gunowners.org/wv07.htm

On Fri, 9 Mar 2001 22:05:48 -0500, "Me" <dove@spirit.god> posted in
alt.atheism:

>Trying to get "separation of church and state" out of "Congress shall pass no law
>regarding the establishment of religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof" is
>a lot harder than getting "trial by one's peers" or "separation of powers" out of
>the relevant phrases in the Constitution.

Where do you get "trial by one's peers" from the Constitution?

>How anyone can justify separation of church and state as exists today based on the
>these and thousands of other similar examples of the early history of our
>government simply defies comprehension.  In reality, it has to do with deeply
>ingrained and reflexive bias against religion- nothing, more, and nothing less.

The nation is FOUNDED on a distrust of religion getting into bed with
government.  That's just about the sole reason for the early
immigration to these shores.

>We actually have separation of church of state in this country because we have
>evolved from a religious to a secular society, not because separation of church
>and state is what the Framers wanted.

Jefferson wasn't a framer?

>I once saw a THREE-HOUR video on the subject, and you would be amazed at the truth
>beyond the bogus claim that the Framers wanted an impregnable wall of separation
>between church and state.  For starters, what they really wanted was to avoid any
>one Christian denomination being sponsored by the state or federal government,
>i.e. a state religion.

Nice fictitious video, considering that most of the founding fathers
weren't Christian.

>and the fact that Thomas Jefferson ended his
>presidential letters with "in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ...".

Which was the equivalent of our "A. D.".
-- 
Al - Unnumbered Atheist #infinity
aklein at villagenet dot com

Al Klein wrote:
---snipped--- 
> Nice fictitious video, considering that most of the founding fathers
> weren't Christian.

Bzzxxxt!! Try again.  The VAST majority of the founders were Christian. 
They enshrined Constitutional protections against a State religion IN
SPITE of that fact.  Read their bios.  Most were Christians, their
society and culture were overwhelmingly Christian.  The ones that
weren't were theists of some variety or another.
 
> >and the fact that Thomas Jefferson ended his
> >presidential letters with "in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ...".
> 
> Which was the equivalent of our "A. D.".

Secularists seem to prefer "CE" and "BCE" now.  A.D. MEANS year of our
Lord (Anno Domini).  Don't let your support or opposition of people's
faith blind you to historical fact.

NM




> Al - Unnumbered Atheist #infinity
> aklein at villagenet dot com

In article <98c97l010nk@enews1.newsguy.com>, Me <dove@spirit.god> wrote:
>
>Separation of church and state is a political philosophy based on a
>misinterpretation of Thomas Jefferson, who later presided as governor, I
>believe,
>of a state that used the Bible as a text book in its schools.

You forgot to put quotes around the word 'misinterpretation'. I also think
it was earlier and not later that he was the Governor of Virginia. His
famous 'misinterpretation' was written to a group of Baptists during his
Presidency. For a better view of how Jefferson felt about religious
freedom than is offered by evangelical Christian pamphlets and such should
be sought in the Statute of Virginia For Religious Freedom which he wrote
and considered to be one of his three most important contributions to this
nascent country.

P
--
Speak not in the ears of a fool: 
for he will despise the wisdom of thy words.
Proverbs 23,9

"NM" <afe@usa.net> wrote in message news:3AAD3C13.6C26D34F@usa.net...
> Al Klein wrote:
> ---snipped---
> > Nice fictitious video, considering that most of the founding fathers
> > weren't Christian.
>
> Bzzxxxt!! Try again.  The VAST majority of the founders were Christian.
> They enshrined Constitutional protections against a State religion IN
> SPITE of that fact.  Read their bios.  Most were Christians, their
> society and culture were overwhelmingly Christian.  The ones that
> weren't were theists of some variety or another.

Oh dear. Bzzxxxt? No, I don't think so. George Washington, Benjamin
Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson were all deists. Quite different from a
Christian, thank you.

Source: The Forge of Experience Volume One of James Thomas Flexner's four
volume biography of Washington; Little, Brown & Company; pps 244-245

>
> > >and the fact that Thomas Jefferson ended his
> > >presidential letters with "in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ...".
> >
> > Which was the equivalent of our "A. D.".
>
> Secularists seem to prefer "CE" and "BCE" now.  A.D. MEANS year of our
> Lord (Anno Domini).  Don't let your support or opposition of people's
> faith blind you to historical fact.

One has little to do with another. AD is typically used even today to demark
a
historical (not religious) era. In fact, neither is particularly accurate.
Try looking
at a Jewish calendar sometime. The "real" year is 5760 or thereabouts.

Matt

Captain wrote:
[snip]

> What Jews?  What Hispanics ?  What Aficro-Americans Americans?  I grew
> up in a small farming town, think of Lake Woebegone.  Of course the
> Mackerel Smackers also ate fish on Friday as well as not knowing all
> the words to the Lords Prayer..

Well, we didn't have Afro-Americans either...this was 1958 in Miami and there was a black
high school only half a mile away, on the other side of the tracks both literally and
figuratively. Their football games took place on the school PE field, ours in the Orange
Bowl.

rj

"NM" <afe@usa.net> wrote in message news:3AABB1E6.CE7549B@usa.net...
> Luha wrote:
> ---snipped---
> > Why don't you and dove go finish out your grade school educations?  Like
I
> > said in my first post, you are theists and, therefore, don't possess the
> > tools for this type of "deep thinking" (such as it is).
>
> His/Her education as far as Constitutional and American history seems
> quite adequate.

For what?  To tell me that the catch-phrase "separation of church and state"
does not appear in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights?  Duh!!!  What I
was taking them to task for is figuring that it was alright for the
government to dally into religion because of some traditional invocation
ceremonies.

 To assert that "theism" or any other form of spiritual,
> philosophical or religous adherence precludes or limits any kind of
> "deep thinking" is sheer idiocy.

My personal experience must be different than yours then.  Can you name any
of the minds that have dissected the universe that are stout theists.  I'll
wait.

  Seems its you who fail to appreciate
> manifold modalities of thought and consideration.

Manifold modalities?  I have learned through hard experience to distrust
anyone who has to use big words to impress.

 Trying to make
> yourself feel superior in some way?

To theists?  Shit, it don't take nuthin' to feel superior to theists!

  You haven't demostrated any "tools"
> necessary to assess the intellectual functioning or capacity of other.

So you say.  You have demonstrated a lack of them, however.

> This makes your assertion idle speculation or outright stupidity.  Don't
> be so intellectually lazy.
>
I'm still waiting.

> NM

On Mon, 12 Mar 2001 19:09:50 -0700, "Matt Telles"
<matttelles@sprynet.com> posted in alt.atheism:

>"NM" <afe@usa.net> wrote in message news:3AAD3C13.6C26D34F@usa.net...

>> Bzzxxxt!! Try again.  The VAST majority of the founders were Christian.
>> They enshrined Constitutional protections against a State religion IN
>> SPITE of that fact.  Read their bios.  Most were Christians, their
>> society and culture were overwhelmingly Christian.  The ones that
>> weren't were theists of some variety or another.

>Oh dear. Bzzxxxt? No, I don't think so. George Washington, Benjamin
>Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson were all deists. Quite different from a
>Christian, thank you.

And wasn't it Adams (the elder) who called Christianity an
abomination?
-- 
Al - Unnumbered Atheist #infinity
aklein at villagenet dot com