[MD] Tea Bagging

[118]

On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 9:32 AM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>wrote:

>
> Mark replied to dmb:
> ... Let me assert that there is no explicit discussion of the separation of
> church and state in that amendment.  Such a thing would not have been
> considered at that time since the colonies were governed in highly religious
> manners.  What the amendment states is that the government will not
> establish a theocracy like they have in Iran (for example).  This is an
> important distinction. ... So, the idea of separation of church and state is
> far from well established, although it may be in your mind.  And yes, the
> interpretation is always open, something which you would want to prevent for
> those who hold opposing views to yours.
>
> dmb says:
>
> Are we talking about the meaning of concepts and principles or just the
> existence of a particular phrase? I mean, you can't really believe that the
> issue hinges on whether or not the exact phrase appears in the document.
> That would be ridiculous. The fact is - and I'm talking about historical and
> legal facts here - the separation of church and state is explicitly stated
> in the document. Like I already said, the first part of the first amendment
> is known as the "separation clause". And it is simply a fact that this
> principle has been well established in subsequent court cases, about as well
> established as any part of the law. It also is simply untrue that such a
> thing couldn't have been considered in colonial times. They were not only
> considered, they were debated at length and written into our highest law.
> Yes, of course there are different interpretations. That's how the system
> works. But your "interpretation" does not comport with the facts of law or
> history.
>

Hi dmb

We are talking about a debate which was performed for the purposes of
informing the public about positions.  It deteriorated into character
assassination, but what do you expect.

When you say "is known as" you are speaking to interpretation, which as I
have stated was only codified under its present application about 60 years
ago.  Now that is history, but somewhat incomplete.  Court cases work on
precedent.   However, such precedent can always be overturned and they does
not establish a permanent setting, it is living law.  I believe my
interpretation conforms more with the complete history than yours does.  The
prayer currently used in government proceedings was one example that the
church and state are not separate.  The colonies were established on
religious grounds, both the constitution and declaration contain religion.
 The consideration at that time was that the government should not establish
a theocracy, nothing more.  As time past, the interpretation was expanded
all to protect the individual from the government.  Obviously this
interpretation has not worked.  Many believe that we should move towards the
original intent.

>
>
> From Americans United for a Separation of Church and State:
> "It is true that the literal phrase 'separation of church and state' does
> not appear in the Constitution, but that does not mean the concept isn't
> there. The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an
> establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."
> What does that mean? A little history is helpful: In an 1802 letter to the
> Danbury (Conn.) Baptist Association, Thomas Jefferson, then president,
> declared that the American people through the First Amendment had erected a
> "wall of separation between church and state." (Colonial religious liberty
> pioneer Roger Williams used a similar phrase 150 years earlier.)
> Jefferson, however, was not the only leading figure of the
> post-revolutionary period to use the term separation. James Madison,
> considered to be the Father of the Constitution, said in an 1819 letter,
> "[T]he number, the industry and the morality of the priesthood, and the
> devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total
> separation of the church and state." In an earlier, undated essay (probably
> early 1800s), Madison wrote, "Strongly guarded...is the separation between
> religion and government in the Constitution of the United States."
> As eminent church-state scholar Leo Pfeffer notes in his book, Church,
> State and Freedom, "It is true, of course, that the phrase 'separation of
> church and state' does not appear in the Constitution. But it was inevitable
> that some convenient term should come into existence to verbalize a
> principle so clearly and widely held by the American people....[T]he right
> to a fair trial is generally accepted to be a constitutional principle; yet
> the term 'fair trial' is not found in the Constitution. To bring the point
> even closer home, who would deny that 'religious liberty' is a
> constitutional principle? Yet that phrase too is not in the Constitution.
> The universal acceptance which all these terms, including 'separation of
> church and state,' have received in America would seem to confirm rather
> than disparage their reality as basic American democratic principles."
> Thus, it is entirely appropriate to speak of the "constitutional principle
> of church-state separation" since that phrase summarizes what the First
> Amendment's religion clauses do-they separate church and state.
> Religious Right activists have tried for decades to make light of
> Jefferson's "wall of separation" response to the Danbury Baptists,
> attempting to dismiss it as a hastily written note designed to win the favor
> of a political constituency. But a glance at the history surrounding the
> letter shows they are simply wrong.
> As church-state scholar Pfeffer points out, Jefferson clearly saw the
> letter as an opportunity to make a major pronouncement on church and state.
> Before sending the missive, Jefferson had it reviewed by Levi Lincoln, his
> attorney general. Jefferson told Lincoln he viewed the response as a way of
> "sowing useful truths and principles among the people, which might germinate
> and become rooted among their political tenets."
> At the time he wrote the letter, Jefferson was under fire from conservative
> religious elements who hated his strong stand for full religious liberty.
> Jefferson saw his response to the Danbury Baptists as an opportunity to
> clear up his views on church and state. Far from being a mere courtesy, the
> letter represented a summary of Jefferson's thinking on the purpose and
> effect of the First Amendment's religion clauses.
> Jefferson's Danbury letter has been cited favorably by the Supreme Court
> many times. In its 1879 Reynolds v. U.S. decision the high court said
> Jefferson's observations "may be accepted almost as an authoritative
> declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." In the
> court's 1947 Everson v. Board of Education decision, Justice Hugo Black
> wrote, "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.'" It is only in recent times that separation has come under
> attack by judges in the federal court system who oppose separation of church
> and state."
>

Yes, I agree with the above, the State should not interfere with the
religion of the people.  In my opinion, pushing for the building of a mosque
is such interference and such a thing occurs on either side of the argument.
 The current interpretation as I see it is that such interference is
necessary (but why?).  We need to rebuild that wall of separation.  This
does not mean that the government cannot provide people what they want in
terms of religion, it means that government has no position on what they
want.  In the building of a mosque it is up to the community to decide, not
the government, and certainly not some interpretation which will change.

>
>
>
> Mark also said to dmb:
> So I am not religious but I do have a problem grasping what you are
> proposing.  When you are supporting the laughing of law students, you are
> also supporting profound indoctrination into a religious perspective.  I
> know that you probably do not see it that way, but that is because of your
> extreme faith.  Your concept of protecting intellectual evolution is only
> putting blinkers on such evolution.  It can only evolve in the way you want
> it too, you are creating all sorts of static filters.  Is intellectual
> evolution really that fragile?  Perhaps you do not give it the credit it
> deserves.  Perhaps you think we can control it, Heavens to Betsy!
>



>
>
> dmb says:
>
> Supporting their laughter is supporting profound indoctrination? Defending
> intellectual evolution and religious freedom puts blinkers and static
> filters on evolution? Dude, that doesn't even make sense. You're not being
> reasonable in the least. O'Donnell's ignorance has made her a laughing stock
> and rightly so. You are defending a complete airhead with profoundly bad
> reasoning. Defense of the principle of separation is indoctrination into an
> extreme faith? Obviously, that's exactly what it is NOT. Is this one of
> those childish games where you simply reverse the meaning of everything I
> say or are you sincerely that bad at thinking?
>

Yes, it puts blinkers on in the sense that it is controlled (sometimes by
the state, sometimes by the scientific establishment, and others, but
controlled, thus blinkers).  I do not think this is one of those childish
games, but of course that is open to interpretation.  What I mean by faith
is that you do not question your doctrine of separation, you consider it to
be some kind of divine right which has attachments outside of the human
experience.  The evolution I am speaking of is one which would occur in the
absence of the divine law you are proposing.

Cheers,
Mark

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>