Re: Law and religion - moral issues

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (M. Clark) wrote:

>:|<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>:|
>:|> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (M. Clark) wrote:
>:|> >:|The Supreme Court has been basing its church/state separation decisions
>:|> >:|on Jefferson's famous "separation of church and state" writing.  This is
>:|> >:|evidenced by the Court opinions for cases such as Everson and Murdock.
>:|> >:|But these opinions don't reference Jefferson's lesser known writings
>:|> >:|which show that Jefferson recognized that the States do have the
>:|> >:|constitutional power to address religious issue.  The bottom line is
>:|> >:|that the SC hasn't done its homework with respect to Jefferson and is
>:|> >:|consequently screwing things up with respect to church/state separation
>:|> >:|issues.
>:|> 
>:|> Liar
>:|> 
>:|> You enjoy lying and must enjoy being caught lying;
>:|> 
>:|> Everson v. Bd of Ed defined the Establishment Clause. Here are the
>:|> footnotes that the court used to pen the definition: Footnotes to Everson
>:|> V. Bd of Ed.
>:|>  http://makeashorterlink.com/?S12525BA6
>:|> 
>:|> You will find that a good many sources were used with Jefferson only being
>:|> one of many.
>:|> But you have been told that before and you still lie.
>:|> 
>:|> The particular writings of Jefferson you refer to existed in a specific
>:|> time period, a period that no longer exists.
>:|
>:|It so happens that Jefferson's church/state separation writing is older
>:|than two of the three writings of his that I posted.  So the Court gave
>:|one of Jefferson's OLDER writings the force of the law in the mid
>:|1900's, long after Jefferson was dead.

FACTS:
(1) Thomas Jefferson did not  create church state separation in Virginia or
in the United States.   James Madison played a far larger role in that
particular undertaking, both in Virginia and in the United States than his
buddy Jefferson did. 

(2) The USSC did not give Thomas Jefferson's writings per se any force of
law. The USSC in a 1879 case said in dicta the following:

In a little more than a year after the passage of this statute the
convention met which prepared the Constitution of the United States. Of
this convention Mr. Jefferson was not a member, he being then absent as
minister to France. As soon as he saw the draft of the Constitution
proposed for adoption, he, in a letter to a friend, expressed his
disappointment at the absence of an express declaration insuring the
freedom of religion, but was willing to accept it as it was, trusting that
the good sense and honest intentions of the people would bring about the
necessary alterations. 1 Five of the States, while adopting the 1
Constitution, proposed amendments. Three, New Hampshire, New York and
Virginia, included in one form or another a declaration of religious
freedom in the changes they desired to have made, as did also North
Carolina, where the convention at first declined to ratify the Constitution
until the proposed amendments were acted upon. Accordingly, at the first
session of the first Congress the amendment now under consideration was
proposed with others by Mr. Madison. It met the views of the advocates of
religious freedom, and was adopted. Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to
an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, took
occasion to say: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies
solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his
faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the Government reach
actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that
act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature
should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between
Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the Supreme will of the
Nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see, with sincere
satisfaction, the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to
all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to
his social duties." Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the
advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative
declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured. Congress
was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free
to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of
good order.
SOURCE: Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, (1879)

The case was NOT decided on the Establishment Clause or the Free Exercise
Clause but rather was decided under civil contract/marriage law.
Thus what the court said with regards to Jefferson, etc was not a legal
ruling or even a real rule of law.

In 1947 the US Supreme, for the very first time in history defined the
meaning of the Establishment Clause.
In doing so it cited the following sources as background that led them to
define the Establishment Clause in this particular manner:

 Everson v. Bd of Ed defined the Establishment Clause. Here are the
footnotes that the court used to pen that definition: 
Footnotes to Everson v. Bd of Ed.
 http://makeashorterlink.com/?S12525BA6

Readers will note  (you won't since facts, truth etc are of no importance
to you. You are a liar and have a agenda, and trolling that agenda  is all
you are interested in) that Jefferson was only one of many historical
sources the court looked at in formulating the Establishment Clause
definition. 

That definition is as follows:  (You will see the one sentence
acknowledgement of Jefferson's metaphor but you will also see that metaphor
isn't really defined or used as an actual rule of law.)

ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE:
The Establishment Clause as defined by the USSC in Everson v. Bd of Ed,
1947

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at
least this: 

(1) neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. 

(2) Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, 
(2a) aid all religions, 
(2b) or prefer one religion over another. 

(3) Neither can force 
(3a) nor influence a person to go to 
(3b) or to remain away from church against his will 
(3c) or force him to profess a belief 
(3d) or disbelief in any religion. 

(4) No person can be punished for entertaining [p*16] 
(4a) or professing religious beliefs 
(4b) or disbeliefs, 
(4c) for church attendance 
(4d) or non-attendance. 

(5) No tax in any amount,
(5a) large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities 
(5b) or institutions, whatever they may be called, 
(5c) or whatever form they may adopt to teach 
(5d) or practice religion. 

(6) Neither a state 
(6a) nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the
(6b) affairs of any religious organizations 
(6c) or groups, 
(6d) and vice versa. 

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."
Reynolds v. United States, supra, at 164.

        ************************************
                                   TESTS:
        ************************************

Over many years and many cases mainly involving religion in public schools,
the Supreme Court has developed three "tests" to be applied to religious
practices for determining their constitutionality under the Establishment
Clause.
        ************************************
The LEMON TEST

Based on the 1971 case of Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13, the
Court will rule a practice unconstitutional if:

1.It lacks any secular purpose. That is, if the practice lacks any
non-religious purpose.

2.The practice either promotes or inhibits religion.

3.Or the practice excessively (in the Court's opinion) involves government
with a religion.

        ************************************
The HISTORICAL TEST

Based on Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983). Requires a unambiguous and
unbroken history of more than 200 years. BTW, the history that was employed
by the Court in Marsh v. Chambers was flawed. See:

 Chaplains and Congress
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/chaptest.htm

Chief Justice Burger, I Would Like You To Meet Mr. Madison
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/meet.htm

Discrepancies
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/discrep.htm

The Political Move That Backfired
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/backfire.htm
        ************************************
THE ENDORSEMENT TEST

Drawing from the 1989 case of Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, the
practice is examined to see if it unconstitutionally endorses religion by
conveying "a message that religion is 'favored,' 'preferred,' or 'promoted'
over other beliefs."

        ************************************
THE COERCION TEST

Based on the 1992 case of Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 the religious
practice is examined to see to what extent, if any, pressure is applied to
force or coerce individuals to participate. The Court has defined that:
"Unconstitutional coercion occurs when:
(1) the government directs
(2) a formal religious exercise
(3) in such a way as to oblige the participation of objectors."

        ************************************
>:|So with respect to periods that no longer exist, what are you talking
>:|about?

History, liar, history and context, liar, context,  something you aren't
very familiar with.

All of this has been shown you by a half a dozen or more people 
over the past several months, over and over again. 
You repeatedly ignore that and return again posting your same examples and
lies in your compulsive trolling habit.|


>:|> Jefferson's writing and most of his actions taken as a whole portrays a man
>:|> who in action, opinion and belief was a strict separationist fully and
>:|> completely championing strict church (religion) and state  (govt)
>:|> separation and he favored it on both the state and federal level.
>:|
>:|Not only did Jefferson recognize that the Constitution gives the States
>:|the power to address religious issues but Jefferson attended worship
>:|services in the Nation's Capitol building.  Indeed, several government
>:|buildings in DC were used for worship services.

LOL!!!!
This has been addressed  over and over with you and only shows beyond any
doubt you are nothing but a troll.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?D2A732CA6

http://makeashorterlink.com/?J1B723CA6

http://makeashorterlink.com/?A6D743CA6

>:|> The courts viewed history including Jefferson's writing and the writings of
>:|> others in defining the Establishment Clause. 
>:|> You are the one who misunderstands, not that isn't even true, Far too many
>:|> people have pointed out your errors, with facts, not opinions for ignorance
>:|> of history or law to apply anymore.
>:|> You are a unethical and dishonest troll who intestinally distorts truth,
>:|> history, facts, etc. 
>:|
>:|If you examine the opinions of several church/state separation cases you
>:|will see that the Court probably didn't even know about Jefferson's
>:|other writings and consequently misunderstood the scope of the 1st
>:|Amendment's establishment clause.

LOL, and I note that you din't provide any evidence and even was wishy
washy to the point of saying PROBABLY.  

You wanht to know what thjey knew and didn't know, here liar:

 Everson v. Bd of Ed defined the Establishment Clause. Here are the
footnotes that the court used to pen that definition: 
Footnotes to Everson v. Bd of Ed.
 http://makeashorterlink.com/?S12525BA6

>:|M. Clark, internet troll and nutcase

Try the following as well.

     * Christian Orthodoxy And The Founders
 http://members.tripod.com/~candst/orthodox.htm