Re: Truth about separation of church and state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by White_Male_Canada
Brilliantly,wrong. Max is closer to the historical facts than you`ll ever be,being a leftist.
My, the non sequiturs keep on coming. One's political leanings do not dictate how accurate one's grasp of historical fact is; there is no correlation between the two. Max may or may not be closer to the historical facts, but not by virtue of political belief. That is patently absurd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by White_Male_Canada
The words “separation of church and state” was in a letter from Jefferson. But it only became a constitutional position in the 1940s by a bare majority vote of the United States Supreme Court. It was stuck in the opinion(Everson Vs.Board of Education); it wasn’t even a part of the decision, by Hugo Black. Do you know who Justice Hugo Black was?
When Black was put on the court, he was a Senator from Alabama. He was put on the court by FDR. Do you know that before Robert Bird, he was a member of the KKK? And did you know that Justice Hugo Black despised the Catholic religion? He had all these conspiracy theories about the Pope. He’s the one who slipped that language in that decision. He’s the one that you`re quoting.
Please do not impugn nor insult my intelligence, thank you very much. You could easily make your case re: Hugo Black without resorting to a feeble attempt to belittle me. More to the point, nowhere have I quoted Hugo Black. I did quote Justice Blackmun. You're simply assuming that my reference to the separation of church and state stems from Justice Black, and it does not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by White_Male_Canada
So, when we hear socialists going around, “separation of church and state”, they’re not quoting Jefferson,a Deist, and his letter to the Danbury Baptists. They’re quoting Hugo Black who was a member of the KKK.
No, they are indeed and intentionally quoting (if perhaps misinterpreting: that's a separate matter) Jefferson, just as Black did. The later deliberation by Justice Black does not supercede the direct reference to Jefferson, although I'll gladly concede that it does inform the debate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by White_Male_Canada
After Jefferson wrote that letter? He attended morning prayers.Where? They freely held them in Congress then ! LOL
The Constitution and other documents of the time, as the men who wrote them (and they were men), were brilliant but flawed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by White_Male_Canada
And here`s the rest of the letter from Jefferson:
" ... I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man,and tender you,for yourself,and your Religious Associations,assurances of my high respect and esteem."
Thomas Jefferson Jan.01,1802
Jefferson`s letter was written 14 years after the Bill of Rights were adopted. And several of the states ratifying the Bill of Rights actually had official state religions. If today's "separation of church and state" viewpoint existed back then, the Bill of Rights never would have been ratified by the states, including the states that had official religions.
Likely true; this concept, as many others, has evolved with time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by White_Male_Canada
Know what`s worse than that? Take a tour of the Supreme Court building. In it you`ll find copies of the Decalouge,written in stone,carved into the building itself.
The US Constitution can only be modulated via the Amendment process , is not fluid and open to personal interpretations.If it were then it would be called a "living document". A living document means the original context are dead,therefore,the Constitution means whatever an unelected black robed judge says it means.That is a judicial oligarchy.
I take it you are a strict Constitutionalist? But as with any such document, there is margin for error and in part the role of the Court is to interpret the Constitution to the best of its ability.
Re: Truth about separation of church and state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by White_Male_Canada
Quote:
"When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some." Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun in the Lee v. Weisman ruling, 1992.
Some context here that undercuts your argument. The specifics of L vs W was Providence's practice of soliciting ministers for prayers and then controlling the content of the prayer and had nothing whatsoever to do with sex.
I never said it did. Neither the context nor the author of a statement in themselves qualify nor obviate whatever truth there is in the statement. The principle Blackmun states here stands complete and does not require said context.
Quote:
Originally Posted by White_Male_Canada
The Supreme Court allowed the phrase "one nation, under God" (a phrase that was added to the pledge in 1954 during the Cold War) to remain in the Pledge of Allegiance , reversing a district court decision that stated that the phrase "under God" in the pledge constituted "a profession of religious belief" in public schools and therefore violated the Establishment Clause.
Yes, I was born in 1951 so I am well aware of this, and I do not endorse the inclusion of "under God" in the pledge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by White_Male_Canada
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for the United States permitted a student-initiated graduation prayer under a rationale compatible with reconciliationism in Jones v. Clear Creek Indep. Sch. Dist.,easily passing the Lemon test.
Clearly stated,the School cannot solicit a specific Rabbi,priest,minister or any other to recite a prayer. But student initiated prayer is permissable.
No argument there.
