The phrase you are looking for verbatim

is an inference. "Separation of church and state" is implicitly a meta-statement about the provisions of the 1st Amendment. Most court activity is around just such abstractions, inferences and overviews: rarely is an offense, infraction, crime exactly described within the phraseology of the statute.

This is what you learn when you learn Language. It's also the dance of the barrister - who will say anything to get his client off (something you would wish for, if you were that client).

And this is also why we Need judges, juries to perform the largest abstraction of all: to somehow aim to achieve justice (an even loftier concept than any codex of 'laws' in any time or place) -- this despite the imprecise nature of specific 'laws', and the necessary dance of the barristers.

(This is also why such Idiocy as "3 Strikes" and its computer-designated "punishments" are probably Unconstitutional -- for their frustrating a search for justice in an individual case.)

As to, In fact the judge that made the law to remove the religious icon was prohibiting the free excercise of said religion and abriding the freedom of speech.

Ignoring s enforced/made and spelling -
But not all speech at all times is permissible, and your taking these phrases literally [how else?] here too, ignores the manner and location of the 'speech' - which is, after all, the crux of the brouhaha. Concepts overlap, frequently. If it were lots simpler - a dog could vote (and probably would, more often than the average Murican bothers).

There is no cure for 'the literal mind' except years of experience + mental growth. Google cannot supply it. We live in a world of metaphor and approximation, except in such narrow specialties as math and its bastard child - Boolean logic, both of which fall under Einstein's timeless utterances,

"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocre minds.
The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit
to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his
intelligence."

And more to the point of this distinction:

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

So much for 'justice' or for the defining of 'free speech' either - via Boolean sentencing or literal words in statutes.

But keep on plugging. It makes new neuron connections.

I think perhaps you don't know what a metaphor is:

(To steal Jos. Campbell's illustration)

Johnny runs very fast --

"Johnny runs like a deer" ... WRONG.

"Johnny is a deer" ... RIGHT.

Think about it. You simply cannot list [literally, again] every possibly behaviour which is proscribed by (some statute). At Supreme Court level, the frequent axis of argumentation is, "the intent of the Legislators". Etc.

"What the words say" is about what the law 'means'; it is *NOT* a step-by-step description of all possible actions which fit that - -

Oh, your neurons were formatted with VB, right?

TEMPLATE.

ie Thought is not optional.
a + b = c is not a very frequent case within actual life. Since life cannot be simplified downwards - you have to think upwards. Or become a Fundamentalist -- read all your answers from a book; whether the situation applies or not: make it Fit. It's so much easier (for you, but not for all the others).

Otherwise: you have to think.

HTH

Post #145,210 by Ashton 3/10/04 2:33:36 AM Reply	The phrase you are looking for verbatim is an inference. "Separation of church and state" is implicitly a meta-statement about the provisions of the 1st Amendment. Most court activity is around just such abstractions, inferences and overviews: rarely is an offense, infraction, crime exactly described within the phraseology of the statute. This is what you learn when you learn Language. It's also the dance of the barrister - who will say anything to get his client off (something you would wish for, if you were that client). And this is also why we Need judges, juries to perform the largest abstraction of all: to somehow aim to achieve justice (an even loftier concept than any codex of 'laws' in any time or place) -- this despite the imprecise nature of specific 'laws', and the necessary dance of the barristers. (This is also why such Idiocy as "3 Strikes" and its computer-designated "punishments" are probably Unconstitutional -- for their frustrating a search for justice in an individual case.) As to, In fact the judge that made the law to remove the religious icon was prohibiting the free excercise of said religion and abriding the freedom of speech. Ignoring s enforced/made and spelling - But not all speech at all times is permissible, and your taking these phrases literally [how else?] here too, ignores the manner and location of the 'speech' - which is, after all, the crux of the brouhaha. Concepts overlap, frequently. If it were lots simpler - a dog could vote (and probably would, more often than the average Murican bothers). There is no cure for 'the literal mind' except years of experience + mental growth. Google cannot supply it. We live in a world of metaphor and approximation, except in such narrow specialties as math and its bastard child - Boolean logic, both of which fall under Einstein's timeless utterances, "Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocre minds. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence." And more to the point of this distinction: "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." So much for 'justice' or for the defining of 'free speech' either - via Boolean sentencing or literal words in statutes. But keep on plugging. It makes new neuron connections.
Post #145,262 by orion 3/10/04 11:47:14 AM Reply	Sort of "read between the lines" don't go by what the words say, go by what they were supposed to say? *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #145,469 by Ashton 3/10/04 7:30:14 PM Reply	NO.. I think perhaps you don't know what a metaphor is: (To steal Jos. Campbell's illustration) Johnny runs very fast -- "Johnny runs like a deer" ... WRONG. "Johnny is a deer" ... RIGHT. Think about it. You simply cannot list [literally, again] every possibly behaviour which is proscribed by (some statute). At Supreme Court level, the frequent axis of argumentation is, "the intent of the Legislators". Etc. "What the words say" is about what the law 'means'; it is NOT a step-by-step description of all possible actions which fit that - - Oh, your neurons were formatted with VB, right? TEMPLATE. ie Thought is not optional. a + b = c is not a very frequent case within actual life. Since life cannot be simplified downwards - you have to think upwards. Or become a Fundamentalist -- read all your answers from a book; whether the situation applies or not: make it Fit. It's so much easier (for you, but not for all the others). Otherwise: you have to think. HTH

Welcome to IWETHEY!