I am trying to understand seperation of church and state

Post #144,966 by orion 3/9/04 2:40:33 AM Reply	I am trying to understand seperation of church and state I searched and I cannot find in our Constitution where it says we have to seperate church and state. Just something about Congress shall make no law promoting one religion over another. So then what about those court rulings that say religious stuff in the government is Unconstitutional? Is this just an interpritation by a judge, or is that seperation of church and state really there? If one has to throw out the Ten Commandments, then why is the Roman goddess of Justice still in the courts? You know the woman with the scales and blindfold? Or is it just certain religions that are allowed? If so, where is the justice? Maybe I missed it, I am good at missing things. Can someone help me find it? I am trying to improve on myself, but I am having difficulty with this. Thanks. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #144,967 by altmann 3/9/04 3:22:47 AM Reply	Your religion must be dead for 1000 years Your religion must be dead for 1000 years before you are allowed to put up official government statues depicting it. And they must be fully clothed. -- Chris Altmann
Post #144,985 by inthane-chan 3/9/04 9:28:29 AM Reply	You found it. Congress shall make no law promoting one religion over another. In english, it means that Congress shall not promote one religion over another - which, in practice, the easiest way to do this is to not promote any religion at all. All the yahoos out there trying to get Christian ideology stuck into our government are doing this directly in contravention to the 1st amendment. It's not that they're trying to display Christian ideology in and of itself - it is that they want to exclude other religions from having the same access they do. They want the government-funded displays of the ten commandments - but no money for Jewish or Islamic traditions. "I'll stop calling this crew 'Orwellian' when they stop using 1984 as an operations manual." - J. Bradford DeLong
Post #145,158 by danreck 3/9/04 10:46:04 PM Reply	a few nits Read the first further... "or prohibit the free expression of..." I've never understood the "seperation" part either - not in the Constitution. He did find it however; just not there... It was his statement about judges interpretting. If anyone would actually READ the first ammendment, it is pretty clear. Oh well... Also, the Jews would not be offended by the Ten Commandments on religious grounds. You know... Just a few thoughts, Danno
Post #145,161 by danreck 3/9/04 10:51:26 PM Reply	Aw, what the hell... Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. No law establishing or prohibiting... NO LAW. NO. LAW. Is this a fucking travesty or what? It's not like this is an ambiguous statement. I don't understand the concept of seperation either. Talk amongst yourselves... Just a few thoughts, Danno
Post #145,178 by orion 3/10/04 12:07:49 AM Reply	How I read it is that it says Congress can make no law. Congress did not make a law. It was a judge that decided to display a religious icon in a court building, nothing to do with Congress. It does not specifically say that there is to be a seperation of church and state. People must be reading that in there somehow and I am not sure why. 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. Which in my view can be seen as Unconstitutional if you ignore the fact that the Constitution only limits Congress and not the judicial system. It does not say The Government, it just says Congress. Show me where Congress passed such a law. It is a loophole and States, Cities, Courts can pass laws that are not limited as Congress is. Either the Constitution needs to be amended, or the rulings made fall out of the juristiction of the Constitution because it limits Congress and not other parts of the government. Am I the only one who sees this, or am I seeing things wrong here? *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #145,190 by ChrisR 3/10/04 12:59:52 AM Reply	You also have to look up the 14th amendment The 14th amendment says that no state can abridge the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The Courts have applied this to mean that states are prohibited from abridging Federal rights. A little [link\|http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/estabinto.htm\|legal history] might help. And, yes, it is a right to not have religion thrust upon you by any branch of government. As a Christian of a minority sect in this region (Catholic), I do appreciate not having government institutions enforce fundamentalist dogma upon my family. Wish I could say the same for those regions where the Catholics are in the majority but alas, the majority always wants to push it's crap down the throats of others.
Post #145,260 by orion 3/10/04 11:43:10 AM Reply	Thanks for that I apparently did not read far enough to get to the 14th Admendment yet. And, yes, it is a right to not have religion thrust upon you by any branch of government. As a Christian of a minority sect in this region (Catholic), I do appreciate not having government institutions enforce fundamentalist dogma upon my family. Wish I could say the same for those regions where the Catholics are in the majority but alas, the majority always wants to push it's crap down the throats of others. Sort of like Thailand where one must be Buddist to hold office or work for the government. If you are not Buddist, you cannot work for the government there. Of course there is a big difference between forcing a religion down someone's throats and just displaying a religious icon. The later does not force religion on anyone, it is just a dislay of a religous icon. Which I see as an expression of free speech. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #145,272 by ChrisR 3/10/04 12:27:22 PM Reply	Religious freedom is an individual's right... ...when that individual is acting as the state though, the right of religious expression conflicts with the rights of individuals who fall within the jursidiction of the individual. In the case of school prayer, you had the state mandating that public schools direct it's participants to pray. In the case of the 10 commandments, you had an authority of state requiring you to honor religious dogma. Well, if the judge wants to display the 10 commandments in his living room or his synagogue, I have no qualms with that. However, he is displaying them as an agent of the state and as such his actions in the courtroom are restricted. Or let's put it in other terms. Let's say that said judge happens to be Roman Catholic. As a RC, said judge could easily have religious icons that would be offensive to others: A statute of the virgin Mary, or Our Lady of Guadalupe. Said judge may also like to say Hail Marys and pray the Rosary frequently. Do you think any of these icons or prayers should be officially sanctioned in a Court of Law? If not, then where do you draw the line - most likely you'd draw the line on symbols that are inoffensive to Christians of all denominations. Throw in the Jews for good measure. What about the Islamics or Hindus, or Buddhists? Well, you might profess that the US is a Christian nation, and therefore non-Christians need not apply (but then we'd get into an argument about whether to include the non-trinitarians like the LDS). And we'd also skim over the fact that the arguments between Christian communities are probably even more heated than the arguments with those outside of that domain. Before you know it, what was intended to be something to act as a cohesive force in our communities, is actually the source of divisiveness. And we haven't even started in on those rogue atheists. Personally, i'd think that the spiritual descedents of Luther and Calvin would be more cognizant of what evil lurks behind the combination of Church and State. Most of the stupid things the Church has done arose directly from the abuse of state power. Odd that a Catholic, such as myself, would be on the side of stripping religion from government, whereas the fundamentalists want to put it back in.
Post #145,299 by orion 3/10/04 1:11:26 PM Reply	The way I see it is that government cannot restrict freedom of speech or religion. Yet it clearly does. I did not see in the Constitution where it says representatives of State cannot express or display their religious beliefs, icons etc. All I see is the Congress not passing a law reference. If a Ten Commandments is displayed, then other judges have the right to display their religous icons too. It has to be fair for all. This none for all, unless it is a dead religion thing just still does not make sense to me. If Christmas items are displayed, then Chanukah, Winter Solstiace, Kwanza, etc should be displayed as well. Denying any of them is just plain wrong. It has nothing to do if it is offensive to someone or not, people can get easily offended by anything. I find no offense with Chanukah, Winter Solstiace, Kwanza, etc icons, but another Christian might. So what? Other Religions need to display their icons as well, get over it. We also have to support the Islamics or Hindus, or Buddhists etc. The USA is not a Christian nation, we may have government leaders who are Christian, and our country may have been founded by Christians (or Deists who believe in a God but that is a debate for another time) but the USA is still a melting pot of people or all sorts of religions and backgrounds. It is that all religions should have the same rights as long as they do not break any laws (Human Sacrifice falls under murder laws, for example). There was a law written called the "Common/Law Marriage" that defined marriage as one man and one woman who lived together for a long time would become married. It did not mention religion, and it did not include same-sex couples. While the constitution says nothing about defining marriage, the "Common/Law Marriage" law does. It was used in Frontier times and now only some states still support it. [link\|http://www.itslegal.com/infonet/family/common.html\|http://www.itslegal....amily/common.html] So basing a law on this law would not be forcing religion down someone's throat. It is the definition of a marriage, one man and one woman. Husband and wife, clearly stated. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #145,304 by ChrisR 3/10/04 1:24:02 PM Reply	Getting off into gay marriages? I've no particular opinion on the state's definition of marriage, as my viewpoint is a tad more restrictive - i.e. marriage is a sacrament that's intended for life. But i'd rather the state not enforce that viewpoint. It's interesting that you believe in the traditions of the judicial system and historical interpretation as it pertains to common law marriage, but eschew a similar vain of tradition which has arisen over the separation of Church and State. Indeed, one could easily argue that the question of what is or is not marriage is much more vague than the question of what constitutes establishment of religion by the state. In the olden days, if you spent an afternoon alone, you might well be considered married, regardless of whether you had consensual sex. Indeed, the idea of state sanctioned marriage is much more recent than the idea of marriage itself. As for expression of religion, you confuse the rights of the individual to express themselves religiously, with the right of that some person to express themselves as an officer of the state. I, for one, don't care to be stopped by a police officer and have that officer hand me a flyer about the upcoming revival meeting. Now, if that same officer wants to stand in front of the mall and hand out flyers, then it's fine by me, as long as said officer is in civilian clothing.
Post #145,461 by orion 3/10/04 7:07:34 PM Reply	Sorry I brought it up but I thought it was relevant as that is where the discussion was heading. Traditionally it has been one man and one woman for the marriage to produce an offspring. That is why a blood test is required. Somehow that has changed as some people marry and do not want to have children. The tax form and tax laws have been for one man and one woman as well. Again not a religious definition. If approved, same-sex marriage will redefine what marriage is and offend a lot of male-female marriages. It also might open the door to having multiple spouses, or marrying a non-human, or marrying oneself. So before a decision is made on same-sex marriages, the government is going to have to think about how it effects existing marriages and the loopholes it may cause. It's interesting that you believe in the traditions of the judicial system and historical interpretation as it pertains to common law marriage, but eschew a similar vain of tradition which has arisen over the separation of Church and State. Indeed, one could easily argue that the question of what is or is not marriage is much more vague than the question of what constitutes establishment of religion by the state. In the olden days, if you spent an afternoon alone, you might well be considered married, regardless of whether you had consensual sex. Indeed, the idea of state sanctioned marriage is much more recent than the idea of marriage itself. Common Law Marriage is much easier to understand than the seperation of church and state for me. Good thing only certain states allow Common Law Marriage, or one can find themselves married when they did not mean to get married. As for expression of religion, you confuse the rights of the individual to express themselves religiously, with the right of that some person to express themselves as an officer of the state. I, for one, don't care to be stopped by a police officer and have that officer hand me a flyer about the upcoming revival meeting. Now, if that same officer wants to stand in front of the mall and hand out flyers, then it's fine by me, as long as said officer is in civilian clothing. I would just smile and say "Thanks, but no thanks." myself. The same thing I say when they stop me and ask me if I want to contribute to the Police Officer's Ball or tickets to some Police event. If you consider it an abuse of power to stop someone just to give them a flyer, then I see your point. If that person was speeding and got pulled over, and then was offered a flyer, I see it as a different thing. Nobody is forcing them to take the flyer and go to the revival, if they are being forced then I see it as a bad thing. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #145,468 by ben_tilly 3/10/04 7:26:28 PM Reply	Why did the blood tests go away? It is very simple. Medical knowledge advanced to the point where it was recognized that if the man was positive for a particular factor, and a woman was negative, there could be complications in pregnancy that threaten mother and child. Specifically, the woman could become exposed to the child's blood, and have a severe allergic reaction. IIRC, 70% of the population is positive on this factor, so problems should come up in 21% of couples. At this point it made sense to have the blood test and be sure that the couple knew if there could be a problem. Since then medical knowledge has progressed to the point that we know how to prevent those medical complications. So we can worry about it later. On what you said about the religious officer, you need to consider implied threats. Whether or not that was the intention, if you're pulled over for speeding and the officer hands you religious literature, the natural tendancy is going to be to perceive (and react to) an implied threat. Therefore we prohibit the behaviour. The State or its representatives in the line of their duty may not coerce you, explicitly or implicitly, to act in accord with any particular religious views. Cheers, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #145,474 by a6l6e6x 3/10/04 8:06:35 PM Reply	Test have not gone away everywhere and it is not because of blood type differences. It's a test for VD. Only a few states require a blood test or a blood test and physical examination before marriage to show whether one party is infected with a venereal disease. In some statutes, for example, the clerk is forbidden to issue a marriage license until the parties present the results of the blood test. [link\|http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/blood_test_requirements/index.shtml\|The state list]. Alex Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom ... the argument of tyrants ... the creed of slaves. -- William Pitt, addressing the British House of Commons (1783)
Post #145,478 by ben_tilly 3/10/04 8:34:15 PM Reply	That link didn't work in mozilla :-( At a glance it looks like they screwed up and forgot the content-type header. Through Google I was able to find and read the cached version, and it answered why they currently exist, not why they used to. However a bit of Googling around found [link\|http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/35320/35323/361888.html?d=dmtHMSContent\|http://www.intelihea...l?d=dmtHMSContent] which told me that I was repeating a common myth. What I said about the health effects of RH factor is not a myth, but that it was the reason for introducing blood tests was. Mea culpa. Live and learn. Etc. Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #145,481 by a6l6e6x 3/10/04 8:41:47 PM Reply	I had the same problem w/Moz. Save as file and then Open file works however. Alex Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom ... the argument of tyrants ... the creed of slaves. -- William Pitt, addressing the British House of Commons (1783)
Post #145,197 by JayMehaffey 3/10/04 1:40:02 AM Reply	This is why the law applies 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. Which in my view can be seen as Unconstitutional if you ignore the fact that the Constitution only limits Congress and not the judicial system. It does not say The Government, it just says Congress. Show me where Congress passed such a law. It is a loophole and States, Cities, Courts can pass laws that are not limited as Congress is. Either the Constitution needs to be amended, or the rulings made fall out of the juristiction of the Constitution because it limits Congress and not other parts of the government. I think what you are missing is that the court room is not the judge's property. The court room belongs to the state, and the state (under current judicial theory) is bound to follow the Constitution. Of course the state does not pass individual laws to specify how government buildings are decorated, rather they deligate the authority to handle that to somebody. But that person is still bound by Constitution, because the state can not authorize somebody to do something that it can not do directly. Putting more simply, when somebody decorates a court room, they are doing so because a law authorizes them to do so. That law, and by proxy anybody implementing it, is bound by the Constitution. Jay The idea that states are bound to follow the Constitution is called incorporation and that is a matter of much judical wrangling. Personally I think incorporation is valid, but that it has been rather selectivly applied on occasion. Jay
Post #145,261 by orion 3/10/04 11:45:27 AM Reply	Court rooms I thought they were the judicial part of the government, not owned by the states. I guess I was wrong? Does the state own the city and federal courts too? *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #145,277 by ChrisR 3/10/04 12:32:41 PM Reply	The legislature enacts the laws, The executive branch administers the law; The courts enforce the law. As enforces of the law, the courts are acting upon legislation passed by congress (at least that's the theory). As such, the courts are not supposed to enforce laws that extend the power beyond the restraints imposed on legislation emanating from the legislative branch. As for states, the 14th amendment is what is applied there. No, the state, county, and city courts are not part of Congress. However, the interpretation of the law is that they can not impose restrictions on freedom of religious expression, nor can they impose religion upon their populace.
Post #145,301 by orion 3/10/04 1:17:07 PM Reply	Still more questions Was the display of a religious icon, a result of a judge enforcing a law? Or was it something else? Will the judge have to quit his religion because he is a representitive of government? Or does having a Christian judge offend people and violate the Constitution? Also I ask is displaying a religious icon imposing religion on the population? *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #145,352 by JayMehaffey 3/10/04 3:09:19 PM Reply	Re: Still more questions Was the display of a religious icon, a result of a judge enforcing a law? In Moore's case no, in fact he had to bring the monument in at night, in secret because he knew he couldn't get away with it if he did it openly. There have been attempts to pass laws to force schools to put up specific christian materials, but they are unconstitutional of course. Will the judge have to quit his religion because he is a representitive of government? Or does having a Christian judge offend people and violate the Constitution? A person is allowed to believe anything they want. It only can be a problem when they try and force that belief on other people. For instance, a judge is allowed to pray before starting court, but he is not allowed to lead the court as a whole in prayer. Also I ask is displaying a religious icon imposing religion on the population? That depends on several things, including your intent in displaying the item, if other items are allowed to be displayed, where the item is being displayed, and who is paying for the display. To give a more concrete example, imagine that some new religion has swept across the US so that 51% of the population follows this religon. This religion requires that all members pass through religious sin arches at least once a day. For the government to spend tax money to put sin arches in front of government buildings would unconstitutional. For the government to allow private groups to build sin arches on government property would generally be unconstitutional. But it could be allowed in special cases if the arches are placed such that people that don't follow that religion don't have to go out of their way to avoid the arch.* A judge that wants to put a sin arch in his private chambers would generally be OK, as long as it wasn't placed such that everybody going into and out of the chambers had to pass through the arch. Jay * The reason for this is that the government is required to allow the free exercise of religon. But the government can not support that exercise. Balancing those two things against each other, and balancing free exercise against harm in cases of dangerous religious practices is a very complex and situational question.
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
Post #145,248 by danreck 3/10/04 11:13:49 AM Reply	I think you are reading it quite accurately... and I believe the others have explained quite eloquently how the interpretations have come to being judicial "laws" in states... As Ashton explains, the phrase "unconstitutional" is bandied about so much these days that it has lost it's original definition (not in the Constitution). A little more historical context is helpful to see why the "separation of church and state" principal is interpretted as it is. Judges (and founders of this country) were predominately Christian but were most definately not the same denomination. Many set up their own societies (states such as Pennsylvania - quakers and later Utah - Mormons, etc...) In their wisdom (and bad experience from feudal Europe, where the church WAS the state and even more specifically, the Anglican church of their times), even the framers knew that the new nation should not endorse/codify a state sanctioned (state meaning Federal in this context) religion. Now, if you want a little more inconsistency/distortion... Public property... It means it belongs to the citizens. All citizens. You may hear people say that it is "unconstitutional" to put up religious icons (menorah, Christmas tree, etc...) on public property... Umm... First Amendment? Nah... Again, the Constitution has nothing to do with this. These are mostly local ordinances. I think the dissonance in most of these types of discussions is the misuse of the term "constitutional" and again, it is a now a generic term for "currently legal or illegal" on either a local/state/federal level. Again, the actual Constitution has absolutely little or no bearing on our legal system. :-) Clear now? Just a few thoughts, Danno
Post #145,252 by ben_tilly 3/10/04 11:19:56 AM Reply	You could speculate or... you could read [link\|http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/\|http://caselaw.lp.fi...tion/amendment01/] and get a wealth of detail on how exactly that section is interpreted by lawyers (together with precedent leading to that result). You may disagree with the chain of reasoning leading to what is said there. But that is the standard that courts are supposed to rule in accord with. Cheers, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #145,267 by orion 3/10/04 12:05:14 PM Reply	Causes even more confusion [link\|http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/04.html#7\|http://caselaw.lp.fi...dment01/04.html#7] Apparently certain religious symbols may be allowed on public display on government property. Then again, some of them may not be displayed. So if it is used in a secular manner, it may be displayed? I am still not understanding how this applies to the Constitution as it does not specifically say secular or not. Secular is a vauge word, and it depends on the person doing the judgement if something is secular or not. One person may say that Santa Claus is secular and can be displayed on public goverment property, and another can say Santa Claus is not secular and therefore has no place on public government property. Secular, as I understand it is worldly, material, not overly religious. I could be wrong. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #145,269 by pwhysall 3/10/04 12:13:39 PM Reply	Secular isn't vague. It has a precise meaning - it simply means "not having any connection with religion". Santa Claus is clearly a religious symbol, because he's quite exactly connected to the Christian festival of Christmas. The figure of "Santa Claus" is actually derived from the European Saint Nicholas. No Xmas = No Santa. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home Page - Now with added Zing!]
Post #145,274 by ben_tilly 3/10/04 12:30:00 PM Reply	By that reasoning then... A Christmas tree is a clearly religious symbol (this time pagan) and so should not be displayed either. Yet in the USA the presence of Christmas trees in various public spaces (including government offices) is readily accepted. Illogical as it may strike you, that isn't how the US court system actually draws the line when they say "secular". Cheers, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #145,294 by pwhysall 3/10/04 1:04:57 PM Reply	I didn't reason at all. I just disagreed with Norman when he said that "secular" is a vague word. It isn't. That's all. Putting up an xmas tree in a government building is one thing. That's fine. Legislating that I must do so is completely different, I think you'll agree. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home Page - Now with added Zing!]
Post #145,338 by ben_tilly 3/10/04 2:35:11 PM Reply	Do try to keep up, willya? Words have multiple definitions. By the definition and reasoning which lead you to classify Santa Claus as a religious symbol, you would also have to classify Christmas trees as a religious symbol. Which, in popular usage, it certainly isn't. Furthermore if it came to a court of law, it wouldn't be as well. Splitting linguistic hairs to come to a wrong conclusion about how courts will decide something is pointless. The courts will decide as they decide. Ours is not to tell them how they should intend their language. It is to understand what they did intend, regardless of how much we argue with how it was put. Furthermore you can drop the non-sequitor. Yes, I'm talking about: Putting up an xmas tree in a government building is one thing. That's fine. Legislating that I must do so is completely different, I think you'll agree. Since you seem to be missing the boat, Norm asked about what was discussed at [link\|http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/04.html#7\|http://caselaw.lp.fi...dment01/04.html#7]. That turns out to be the legality of the placement of symbols with possible religious significance in courthouses. We are not comparing and contrasting between their right to put up such a symbol in a court and the right of government to order you to do it. We are contrasting between why a creche was allowed at one courthouse, while at a second courthouse the creche was not allowed but a menorah was. Now questions of what underlies this may seem to be splitting hairs. And it is. Unless it is the legal system that you live under, and you wish to understand it (as inane as it might be). So if you're not interested in the topic, ignore the discussion. You don't live here, after all. But if you do participate, I'd appreciate it if you at least try to figure out what we're discussing. Regards, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #145,275 by orion 3/10/04 12:31:19 PM Reply	Not what the dictionary says [link\|http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=secular&x=23&y=17\|http://www.m-w.com/c...secular&x=23&y=17] Main Entry: 1sec\ufffdu\ufffdlar Pronunciation: 'se-ky&-l&r Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English, from Old French seculer, from Late Latin saecularis, from saeculum the present world, from Latin, generation, age, century, world; akin to Welsh hoedl lifetime 1 a : of or relating to the worldly or temporal (secular concerns) b : not overtly or specifically religious <secular music> c : not ecclesiastical or clerical (secular courts) (secular landowners) 2 : not bound by monastic vows or rules; specifically : of, relating to, or forming clergy not belonging to a religious order or congregation (a secular priest) 3 a : occurring once in an age or a century b : existing or continuing through ages or centuries c : of or relating to a long term of indefinite duration I was using the first defitinition. As you can plainly see there is more than one defintion which makes it vauge and ambiguous. BTW didn't someone once post in here that Coca Cola invented Santa Claus? I searched and found this: [link\|http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/santa.asp\|http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/santa.asp] Origins: Santa Claus is perhaps the most remarkable of all the figures associated with Christmas. To us, Santa has always been an essential part of the Christmas celebration, but the modern image of Santa didn't develop until well into the 19th century. Moreover, he didn't spring to life fully-formed as a literary creation or a commercial invention (as did his famous reindeer, Rudolph). Santa Claus was an evolutionary creation, brought about by the fusion of two religious personages (St. Nicholas and Christkindlein, the Christ child) to become a fixed image which is now the paramount symbol of the secular Christmas celebration. It clearly states that Santa Claus has become the paramount symbol of the secular Christmas celebration. As I did state, something being secular is relative to the person doing the judgement. Peter apparently sees Santa as not being secular, but Snopes does see Santa as secular. This just adds to the confusion. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #145,292 by pwhysall 3/10/04 1:03:02 PM Reply	Oh yes it is. [link\|http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=71094&dict=CALD\|http://dictionary.ca...y=71094&dict=CALD] Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home Page - Now with added Zing!]
Post #145,293 by ChrisR 3/10/04 1:04:14 PM Reply	That's not a proper Engrish dictionary As it's from Cambridge. :-)
Post #145,295 by pwhysall 3/10/04 1:05:13 PM Reply	Which is in which country (hint hint)? Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home Page - Now with added Zing!]
Post #145,297 by ChrisR 3/10/04 1:08:32 PM Reply	United Kingdom?
Post #145,298 by pwhysall 3/10/04 1:10:53 PM Reply	"United Kingdom of A, B, C and D E" Value of A is? Bonus points for filling in the rest without googling. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home Page - Now with added Zing!]
Post #145,307 by ChrisR 3/10/04 1:35:08 PM Reply	Araq?
Post #145,310 by pwhysall 3/10/04 1:39:03 PM Reply	/me pulls the IFS lever. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home Page - Now with added Zing!]
Post #145,314 by deSitter 3/10/04 1:42:27 PM Reply	Beeria, Crikey, Disrael, and Effinghanistan -drl
Post #145,315 by pwhysall 3/10/04 1:42:53 PM Reply	You've won a free IFS! Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home Page - Now with added Zing!]
Post #145,316 by Silverlock 3/10/04 1:43:22 PM Reply	Anglos, Berbers, Chinese and Damned Europeans? ----------------------------------------- "If you don't vote, it's your fault!" -jb4 George W. "I cannot tell a lie" George W. B. "I cannot tell a lie from lie related program activities"
Post #145,317 by pwhysall 3/10/04 1:44:41 PM Reply	My IFS machine is busy tonight... Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home Page - Now with added Zing!]
Post #145,319 by admin 3/10/04 1:52:36 PM Reply	Arrogant Bastards with Crappy Dictionary Examples? Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #145,325 by pwhysall 3/10/04 2:03:58 PM Reply	STAB! Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home Page - Now with added Zing!]
Post #145,328 by admin 3/10/04 2:09:36 PM Reply	Ah... Anglic Boffins Can't Describe English, Arguing Balefully, "Colonials Defy Eloquence". Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #145,334 by pwhysall 3/10/04 2:29:15 PM Reply	Administrative Boofheads Continually Defy Elegance Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home Page - Now with added Zing!]
Post #145,336 by deSitter 3/10/04 2:31:28 PM 3/10/04 4:16:37 PM Reply	WOBAFGKMRNS "Wow! Oh be a fine girl, kiss me right now sweetie!" (who can identify without looking?) -drl Edited by deSitter March 10, 2004, 04:16:37 PM EST Expand All History
Post #145,347 by admin 3/10/04 3:01:32 PM Reply	Re: WOBAFGKMNRS Stellar sequence, innit? Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #145,365 by deSitter 3/10/04 3:53:46 PM Reply	you get a gold star -drl
Post #145,367 by admin 3/10/04 3:56:42 PM Reply	Not much of a stretch. I was only a year away from an Astronomy degree when I quit... :-) Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #145,369 by deSitter 3/10/04 4:15:58 PM Reply	hmm go back? exciting times for astronomy -drl
Post #145,372 by admin 3/10/04 4:24:46 PM Reply	Two reasons: 1) Tensor calculus 2) Gotta pay the mortgage Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #145,376 by deSitter 3/10/04 4:30:30 PM Reply	Sheeat I could teach you tensors in a month. If you ever want tutoring just say "go" and you'll have it down, bro. Seriously. -drl
Post #145,379 by inthane-chan 3/10/04 4:34:38 PM Reply	Or Scott could just get his son to teach him...
Post #145,382 by deSitter 3/10/04 4:38:00 PM Reply	I'm sure Scott can handle it Few subjects are taught as poorly as vector and tensor analysis. It's just a matter of presenting it correctly from a non-mathematician's point of view. That doesn't mean less rigorous or correct, just less general. -drl
Post #145,383 by inthane-chan 3/10/04 4:38:53 PM Reply	joke == missed. :D
Post #145,395 by admin 3/10/04 5:05:30 PM Reply	You make an assumption... ... that I want to learn tensors. There's a reason I'm not a physicist or a mathematician or an astronomer... I don't like doing math. This has nothing to do with my ability to do math; it's all motivation. :-P Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #145,348 by ben_tilly 3/10/04 3:02:51 PM Reply	Without googling England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. That is not exactly in order of aquisition. IIRC, England's claim to Ireland, asserted with varying degrees of success, goes back to the twelfth centry when the Pope gave Ireland to Henry I. And Northern Ireland corresponds closely (and not coincidentally) with the area in which England long had the strongest hold, aka "The Pale". Cheers, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #145,351 by pwhysall 3/10/04 3:05:26 PM Reply	You are correct! No, it's not in the order of acquisition, but it is in the order that rolls off the tongue best ;) Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home Page - Now with added Zing!]
Post #145,302 by orion 3/10/04 1:20:47 PM Reply	In which country is the law in question being examined? We have different definitions for things over here you know. If it was a UK Law, you could use a UK definiton. When in Rome do as the Romans do and all that. :) *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #145,270 by deSitter 3/10/04 12:20:45 PM Reply	The Bottom line.. ..is that these things are the direct outcome of the evolution of individual rights vs. royal prerogative in England, and in particular the right to be Protestant. It's practically a racial memory. This was embodied in the "Bill of Rights" and "Toleration Acts" of 1689, which were enacted after the abuses of the Catholic King James II. At the same time these rights were coming into being, the English prevented the King from simply dissolving Parliament at his whim, and set an election schedule that had to be strictly followed. It is no accident that our own Consitution follows this same pattern of strictly defining the form of government, as well as the intent in the Bill of Rights. The intent is clearly to keep government and religion apart, and so any amount of legal argumentation needed will be resorted to, to ensure that it happens. Now the odd thing is, racial memories can fade. Just as important as church-state wall is the suspicion of standing armies and the right to bear arms in self-defense. This aspect of the issue has been all but forgotten. -drl
Post #145,318 by danreck 3/10/04 1:48:16 PM Reply	The footnotes to the bottom line... First of all, well said... Second, you write: Now the odd thing is, racial memories can fade. Just as important as church-state wall is the suspicion of standing armies and the right to bear arms in self-defense. This aspect of the issue has been all but forgotten. I think that perhaps the framers did not even consider that a man and a man would "want" to marry... Or that "Arms" would include scoped automatic machine guns... or that any religion other than Christianity... Or that women or non property owners would "want" to vote... Which kind of brings us back to your recent screeds... And maybe, just maybe, there need to be a few more qualifying lines thrown into the "sacred scrolls"... :-) Just a few thoughts, Danno
Post #145,326 by deSitter 3/10/04 2:05:39 PM Reply	Re: The footnotes to the bottom line... As I write this, the Senate is voting on some 430 billion dollars for standing army funding. We should have better memories. Jefferson would have been horrified. The wheels are clearly off the wagon at this point. Wrangling over intent is pointless - the intent is clear. In the days of Jefferson the point was to make it possible for people to be free and productive and uncoerced by the State, however the latter was embodied. The idea that a person could act willy-nilly in any way he deemed fit would never have occured to them as something worth thinking about. -drl
Post #145,341 by danreck 3/10/04 2:43:25 PM Reply	Jefferson is spinning like a rotisserie chicken in his grave But I've been saying that since 1980. I would have been saying it since 1960 had I been born (was born in late '61 after the fall). Adlai was the last man who understood, the Democratic party and all that followed were in the shadow of RFK and that ilk... Ashcroft is a lightweight in comparison. I can hear the echoes of my own voice (especially during election years), but damnit, the party is irrelevent anymore. We (TFPeople) are no longer invited to "the party". That is the problem as I see it. The party sells us the President (choose flavor a or b) the same way that they sell us our clothes and our cars. They sell us everything from youth to religion at the same time they sell us our wars. But their are lives in the balance (plagarized from Jackson Browne). For a country that is so "legalistic" we sure as hell are not very well versed on law, justice, or equality. Or democracy. DRL, you are not alone. As I've said to Ash, I've just taken the next logical leap. It's not pretty 'cause I don't have any room for optimism. Dan God is a concept By which we measure Our pain I'll say it again God is a concept By which we measure Our pain I don't believe in magic I don't believe in I-ching I don't believe in Bible I don't believe in tarot I don't believe in Hitler I don't believe in Jesus I don't believe in Kennedy I don't believe in Buddha I don't believe in Mantra I don't believe in Gita I don't believe in Yoga I don't believe in kings I don't believe in Elvis I don't believe in Zimmerman I don't believe in Beatles I just believe in me Yoko and me And that's reality The dream is over What can I say? The dream is over Yesterday I was the Dreamweaver But now I'm reborn I was the Walrus But now I'm John And so dear friends You'll just have to carry on The dream is over J. Lennon - The Dream is Over
Post #145,273 by ben_tilly 3/10/04 12:27:31 PM Reply	I didn't say that it was simple It was not the presence of the creche that made it unconstitutional. It was how it was presented. In other words you can have a creche in the courthouse. You can't have it on the center staircase, with a prominent sign saying that it was donated by the Catholic Church, with an angel holding a sign saying, "Gloria in Exclesis Deo." The presence can be justified as a secular symbol of a widely observed holiday. The manner that it was presented pretty clearly supports Christianity in general, and The Catholic Church in particular. Sure, there is ambiguity in these dividing lines. But ambiguity is hardly new in our legal system. That is what precedent is for, and generally lawyers and judges who know the precedent have little trouble figuring out whether any given situation is going to be ruled OK or not. Without knowing precedent, you won't have a chance of figuring it out. Nor can anyone just show it to you written out in black and white, because it is the nature of the beast that any specific statute that you write will have grey areas that need clarification. Particularly once it has been read by people with different assumptions and understandings of language. (Yes, a major problem for the legal system is that the English language changes over time. Words written in the 1700's do not always mean today what they did then...) Cheers, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #145,327 by Nightowl 3/10/04 2:08:37 PM Reply	Makes me wonder... Why they swear you in in court on a Bible then, and make you say So Help Me God. What if you are wanting to be sworn in on the Koran, or the Book Of Mormon? Interesting thoughts there. Nightowl >8# "Don't be a cynic and disconsolate preacher. Don't bewail and moan. Omit the negative propositions. Challenge us with incessant affirmatives. Don't waste yourself in rejection, or bark against the bad, but chant the beauty of the good." Ralph Waldo Emerson
Post #145,344 by ben_tilly 3/10/04 2:49:19 PM Reply	They don't make you At least not in theory. While it is customary to swear on a Bible and say, "So Help Me God", it is not required, and you will not be forced to do it if you object. If you wish to swear on a different religious object, or if you wish to make it an affirmation, you can. However the tradition which has been brought down from English Common law is quite strong. As late as 1939, no less than 5 states and The District of Columbia would not excluded testimony from atheists, and in a dozen more any such testimony was routinely attacked on grounds that without belief in God to keep you to the truth, you lacked credibility. I strongly suspect that there are courtrooms today (particularly in the Bible Belt) meeting the latter description. Certainly there are potential jurors who would be swayed by that argument. Something to think about when you see atheists like me rooting for maintaining the separation of Church and State. Cheers, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #145,345 by Nightowl 3/10/04 2:53:01 PM Reply	True, but what I really meant was that if there is this big deal about separation of Church and State, why use a Bible at all? Why not a Lie Detector, or some other concept. It seems that the "separation" is only when it suits their purpose, I guess. Sorry I wasn't more clear before. Nightowl >8# "Don't be a cynic and disconsolate preacher. Don't bewail and moan. Omit the negative propositions. Challenge us with incessant affirmatives. Don't waste yourself in rejection, or bark against the bad, but chant the beauty of the good." Ralph Waldo Emerson
Post #145,354 by ben_tilly 3/10/04 3:16:31 PM Reply	Well, apply the Lemon test The Lemon test (so-named after [link\|http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=403&invol=602\|Lemon v. Kurtzman]) says that the standard for evaluation is this: Does it serve a secular purpose? Yes. Many religious people are more likely to tell the truth after swearing on the Bible. Does it have a primary effect of advancing a particular religious belief? No. Requiring it, or treating different religious oaths differently would. But as long as you are neutral, it doesn't. Does it involve "excessive entanglement" of government and religion? No. Furthermore tradition has a strong influence. Given that it has been accepted for centuries as part of our legal system, without very specific good cause, it won't change any time soon. Cheers, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #144,989 by Andrew Grygus 3/9/04 9:48:21 AM Reply	It started with the Roman Empire. Official policy was simple - you could have any and as many religions as you want, but there was only one government: Rome. Problem was, there were two religions that were the government: Judaism and Druidism. The Druids decided it wasn't a bad policy and politely faded away. The Jews fought tooth and nail - millions died and are still dying. Christianity and Islam, as descendents of Judiasm, have always wanted to be the government, and the Church of Rome pretty much pulled that off. For a long time the only real resistance was the Masons, rooted in Germany where the power of the Church was a bit iffy. The foundation of the U.S. was a Masonic plot, which is why our government is so different from what went before, and why the "Great Seal" of the U.S. is entirely Masonic symbolism. Naturally, the Masons were wary of the churches. The Christians fairly quickly moved into the government, and tried to get rid of the Great Seal and other Masonic trapings, but have been held in check by the law. This has been a continuing church/state battle. As for Pagan symbolism, while there are Pagans today, and some few favor the Classic pattern of abstraction (most chose Egyptian, Celtic or Eastern patterns), they are no threat whatever because they do not seek in any way to be the government - what they want from the government is protection from the Christians, who would very happily murder every non-Christian in the world if not held in check by the law - and who are a direct threat to government because they want to be the government. Christian icons on government property are a direct threat not only to non-Christians but to the government itself and cannot be tolerated. Pagan symbolism is just that, abstract symbolism - neither an object of worship nor a threat to government or to people of other religions. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #145,180 by orion 3/10/04 12:16:53 AM Reply	A fallacy in your argument As for Pagan symbolism, while there are Pagans today, and some few favor the Classic pattern of abstraction (most chose Egyptian, Celtic or Eastern patterns), they are no threat whatever because they do not seek in any way to be the government - what they want from the government is protection from the Christians, who would very happily murder every non-Christian in the world if not held in check by the law - and who are a direct threat to government because they want to be the government. Christian icons on government property are a direct threat not only to non-Christians but to the government itself and cannot be tolerated. Pagan symbolism is just that, abstract symbolism - neither an object of worship nor a threat to government or to people of other religions. Common belief, far fetched, and sterotyping fallacies. While there may be Christians who believe that, not all of them do. I am one of the Christians who do not believe in wiping out all other religions and their people. I have no desire to run the government. You are treating Christian symbols as if they were Nazi symbols or something. Those Christian beliefs that you claim all Christians have, are totally against the teachings of Jesus. You are judging all of Christianity based on the actions of a few radical Christians. Would you like me to judge all Pagans based on the actions of a few radical Pagans that used to harass me because I am a Christian? That is one road I refuse to travel down. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #144,991 by rcareaga 3/9/04 10:16:06 AM Reply	funny you should ask John Carroll discourses on or near the issue in today's Chron: It's a good thing the Christian fundamentalists don't care too much about theoretical physics. The demagogues and biblical literalists on the Christian right have a lot of trouble with evolution, a 150-year old theory that includes apparently objectionable assumptions about the age of the Earth and the specialness of human beings. ... Not only are we not special, but our entire universe is not special. Even our gravity is not special. Needless to say, the cosmology of the Bible says nothing about membranes, quarks, gravitons or invisible dimensions. All we need is for the wingnuts in Congress to get a whiff of this heresy, and it'll be Galileo time on "American Grandstand." The shameless pandering by the Bush administration and its allies to the brainless theories of the fundamentalists has pretty much ruined the national discourse. The fundamentalists have been allowed to set the terms of the debate, and the results have been dreadful. For instance: stem-cell research. Using objections based on a weird theory that postulates the sacredness of life not yet created, fundamentalists are intent on shutting down this promising line of inquiry. Doesn't matter how many diseases might be cured or how much suffering alleviated -- if the Bible doesn't tell us so, forget about it. ... It would be fabulously comic were it not for the blameless human lives being affected. But now we're in the middle of a nasty constitutional amendment fight, and once again George Bush has a golden opportunity to hold on to his base of true believers while distracting the electorate from his real and manifold failures. I believe in religious tolerance and the freedom of people to believe in anything, including the literal truth of any book at all, including "Peter Pan. " But when such a belief threatens to become the official policy of my country, I think it's OK to be intolerant of intolerance and to try to protect the ideals of science and the primacy of human kindness. [link\|http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/03/09/DDG3K52KA31.DTL\|http://www.sfgate.co...9/DDG3K52KA31.DTL] Whenever I feel my contempt for Christianity begin to waver I remember that you, dear Norman, are a believer, and my faithlessness is restored. cordially, Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist.
Post #144,992 by boxley 3/9/04 10:21:08 AM Reply	in one area of the article, only half is revealed For instance: stem-cell research. Using objections based on a weird theory that postulates the sacredness of life not yet created, fundamentalists are intent on shutting down this promising line of inquiry. Doesn't matter how many diseases might be cured or how much suffering alleviated this is true, but knowing our nature or nurture how long would it be before we would be buying, selling stocking spares? Fully functional, movable non humans that could be bought and sold like cattle. thanx, bill when I was young I envisioned myself as the embodiment of Trinity, Now I realize I have turned into the Bambino questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #144,996 by rcareaga 3/9/04 10:31:35 AM Reply	and this "agriculture" stuff We'd be courting all manner of social ills if we gave up our nomadic ways and established permanent settlements and a crop-based economy. (dissenting voice: "Here, try this fermented barley mash") cordially, Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist.
Post #145,019 by ben_tilly 3/9/04 2:02:20 PM Reply	You know, if you have to choose... A nomadic lifestyle is a lot more fun than primitive agriculture. Agriculture means a lot of backbreaking work. More disease. An awful diet. Anthropological estimates are that nomads get a lot more leisure time. And have longer life expectancies. So the brave has a better lifestyle than the peasant. He enjoys more leisure, a longer life, and better food. However the peasant needs less space and can support more kids. (Heck, the kids practically support themselves once they are old enough to work...) Which means that when you have peasants against braves, after a while there are a lot more peasants and the outcome is assured. And once the braves have been pushed around a bit, they are either dead or else trapped in a small enough space that they have to turn to agriculture. (With some exceptions. For instance the Mongols wound up ruling large numbers of peasants. Which still resulted in them being assimilated in the end...) Cheers, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #145,015 by jb4 3/9/04 1:49:14 PM Reply	Actually, less than half is revealed this is true, but knowing our nature or nurture how long would it be before we would be buying, selling stocking spares? Fully functional, movable non humans that could be bought and sold like cattle. Hell, that ain't nuthin' Wait till they open the Futures market on CBOT! Then the fun begins! jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating that facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #145,109 by a6l6e6x 3/9/04 7:40:36 PM Reply	China is far more advanced in this area. They don't wait for people to die, [link\|http://www.christusrex.org/www1/sdc/organs.html\|they execute prisoners] as needed to satisfy the market. Alex Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom ... the argument of tyrants ... the creed of slaves. -- William Pitt, addressing the British House of Commons (1783)
Post #145,174 by lincoln 3/9/04 11:43:40 PM Reply	When I was there Wait till they open the Futures market on CBOT! Then* the fun begins!* I tried to get then to open a Northern California Sinsemilla trading pit - couldn't get the mucky-mucks interested. Never could figure out why, since it has become the biggest agricultural crop in the USA. lincoln "Windows XP has so many holes in its security that any reasonable user will conclude it was designed by the same German officer who created the prison compound in "Hogan's Heroes." - Andy Ihnatko, Chicago Sun-Times [link\|mailto:bconnors@ev1.net\|contact me]
Post #145,276 by jb4 3/10/04 12:31:24 PM Reply	The problem is an expired contract... The reason why that is a problem is left as an exercise for the reader..... jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating that facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #145,103 by Ashton 3/9/04 7:25:35 PM Reply	Bought/sold :-0___ you mean like IT workers?
Post #145,122 by Ashton 3/9/04 8:02:37 PM Reply	bRandishment \ufffd l\ufffd Rand -in Sydney Greenstreet clothing- re that last voir dire: Thou takest mine very thoughtz, Oh Beamish One.. I too.. whenever feeling a moment of shallow Jack-of-Hearts naivete, whereby I might.. see the Foulwells, Robertsons as merely sincerely misguided -?- yet fortunately I ever recall, stet fortuna domus [Ricketts House motto \| Fortunately the house (still) stands] - and the aforementioned human resultant of such stuff. No, the damage is too obnoxious, the extent too pervasive and the now more likely fatal planetary results: too daily palpable -- ever to offer a Christian Spokesperson that 'charity' which (so few of those ever remember) was mentioned somewhere in their committee-redacted tome. (And then I remember Constantine - the Real mischief maker of the fold, and become even less-charitable; Behold I Become Death, The Destroyer of Worlds (of Illusion)) Suffer, Leetle Cheeldrun
Post #145,145 by boxley 3/9/04 9:39:41 PM Reply	for every blowdried3piecesuitlimoowning preacher telling you how to get rich in real estate with no money down iffen ya kiss Jesus's ass his way, you have folks handing out sarnies on the street corners, working with the terminal infective and terminally ill for no more glory than its the right thing to do. Not all christians act like christians, let god sortem out and if the preacher at your church drives a nicer vehicle than you he shore didnt give it to someone who needed a ride more than he did. Caveat Emptor. thanx, bill when I was young I envisioned myself as the embodiment of Trinity, Now I realize I have turned into the Bambino questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #145,216 by Ashton 3/10/04 2:51:19 AM Reply	And those sammich-handing-out ones remain silent as their more manipulative cousins - speakin fer Jesus - go about their mischief. Inaction is action of a kind - it is condoning via silence. Gutless is as gutless does.
Post #145,225 by boxley 3/10/04 8:24:51 AM Reply	nope, in their view meek get sh*t when I was young I envisioned myself as the embodiment of Trinity, Now I realize I have turned into the Bambino questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #144,995 by ChrisR 3/9/04 10:29:10 AM Reply	Look no further than the first phrase of the first amendment Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;.... Written by Jefferson, this amendment was for the explicit purpose of [link\|http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html\|seperation of church and state]. And yes, intent and history do come into play when discussing the constitution.
Post #145,027 by JayMehaffey 3/9/04 3:08:14 PM Reply	Re: I am trying to understand seperation of church and state I searched and I cannot find in our Constitution where it says we have to seperate church and state. Just something about Congress shall make no law promoting one religion over another. Seperating church and state is exactly what not promoting religion means. If the state where to pass a law that says you have to swear by Jupiter that you are telling the truth in court, that is favoring the roman religion over other religions. The only way to keep the state from promoting a religion is to keep church and state seperate. The court has generally interpreted that part of the constitution such that atheism is considered a religion for purposes of establishment. That means that the government can not promote religion in general nor can it promote non-religion in general. So then what about those court rulings that say religious stuff in the government is Unconstitutional? The principle here is that for the government to favor one religion over another in anything is an illegal establishment of religion. Notice that it is not all religious stuff in the court room that is illegal. Only presentations that favor one religion over others that are excluded. It's still legal to swear to tell the truth on the bible, as long as you are allowed to not do so if your not a christian. Many courts are littered with various religious symbols, usually Greek/Roman or Christian, as long as such symbols are just artwork there isn't a problem. Ex-Judge Moore's monument and similar displays of christianity are illegal because they are intended to place christianity in a favored place. Look at this website [link\|http://www.morallaw.org/monument.html\|MoralLaw.org] which has a description of the monument. It makes perfectly clear that the point of the monument is to claim that the US legal system is derived from and secondary to the christian God's rules. As for the statues of Lady Justice, it's hard to say how they would be considered if the Roman and Greek faiths where not dead. The statues do not if fact depict any specific Roman or Greek figure, but historically it was derived from various goddesses. I suspect that the courts would hold that it is a representation of idealized justice that does not embody any specific religion and would be considered legal. Jay
Post #145,028 by ben_tilly 3/9/04 3:15:55 PM 3/9/04 7:56:37 PM Reply	Also a key point that nobody else is pointing out... The separation is only halfway. The State cannot interfere with religion. But religion is allowed to interfere with the State all that it wants and is able to. And they attempt this very frequently, sometimes with success. However the inability for a religious organization to close the loop, take its influence over politics to help support itself, lessens the incentive for religion to mess with politics for bad reasons. Cheers, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi] Edited by ben_tilly March 9, 2004, 07:56:37 PM EST Expand All History
Post #145,138 by Ashton 3/9/04 8:31:18 PM Reply	The effect is nonlinear - So I might quibble over 'halfway'. The language and legal pollution is much swifter and more deadly - in a culture of short attention span, untrained to debate competently -- and dedicated mainly to ease -- particularly the ease of escaping the difficult and lonely process of thinking for oneself. Throw in massive daily Distractions, so as to keep the folks consuming (thus distanced from any time or place as might result in peaceful thought) and not much is apt to be noticed, as various small Popish Presidential Memos are acted upon. cf 1/2001 onwards. Can Heil Christ .. be very many financial quarters down the line? Great fodder for future experimental anthropologists, though.
Post #145,029 by Another Scott 3/9/04 3:26:24 PM Reply	It goes back to Jefferson. [link\|http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_vsrf.html\|Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom] written by Jefferson. It's from 1779, ratified 1786: S e c t i o n II. We the General Assembly of Virginia do enact that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. This document inspired the First Amendment. The phrase "wall of separation" goes back to Jefferson. More information is [link\|http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/churchandstate.html\|here]. HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #145,074 by Steve Lowe 3/9/04 5:49:50 PM Reply	Which goes back to the pilgrims, IIRC The Anglican Church was so intertwined with government that it was difficult to see where one started and the other stopped. Mostly losing the point of both in the process. I'd imagine England in the 1600s was kind of like living in Utah today, only much worse. If you're not Mormon and don't do things the Mormon way...you won't be welcome. ----- Steve
Post #145,191 by deSitter 3/10/04 1:01:11 AM Reply	Right More directly, to the English Bill of Rights of 1689, which addressed the issues that led the Pilgrims to abscond in the first place: English Bill of Rights - December 16,1689 Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges, and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the protestant religion, and the laws and liberties of this kingdom. 1. By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws, and the execution of laws, without consent of parliament. 2. By committing and prosecuting divers worthy prelates, for humbly petitioning to be excused from concurring to the said assumed power. 3. By issuing and causing to be executed a commission under the great seal for erecting a court called, The court of commissioners for ecclesiastical causes. 4. By levying money for and to the use of the crown, by pretence of prerogative, for other time, and in other manner, than the same was granted by parliament. 5. By raising and keeping a standing army within this kingdom in time of peace, without consent of parliament, and quartering soldiers contrary to law. 6. By causing several good subjects, being protestants, to be disarmed, at the same time when papists were both armed and employed, contrary to law. 7. By violating the freedom of election of members to serve in parliament. 8. By prosecutions in the court of King's bench, for matters and causes cognizable only in parliament; and by divers other arbitrary and illegal courses. 9. And whereas of late years, partial, corrupt, and unqualified persons have been returned and served on juries in trials, and particularly divers jurors in trials for high treason, which were not freeholders. 10. And excessive bail hath been required of persons committed in criminal cases, to elude the benefit of the laws made for the liberty of the subjects. 11. And excessive fines have been imposed; and illegal and cruel punishments have been inflicted. 12. And several grants and promises made of fines and forfeitures, before any conviction or judgment against the persons, upon whom the same were to be levied. All which are utterly and directly contrary to the known laws and statutes, and freedom of this realm. And whereas the said late king James the Second having abdicated the government, and the throne being thereby vacant ... the said lords spiritual and temporal, and commons ... do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties, declare; 1. That the pretended power of suspending of laws, or the execution of laws, by regal authority, without consent of parliament, is illegal. 2. That the pretended power of dispensing with laws, or the execution of laws, by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal. 3. That the commission for erecting the late court of commissioners for ecclesiastical causes, and all other commissions and courts of like nature are illegal and pernicious. 4. That levying money for or to the use of the crown, by pretence of prerogative, without grant of parliament, for longer time, or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal. 5. That it is the right of the subjects to petition the King, and all committments [sic] and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal. 6. That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of parliament, is against law. 7. That the subjects which are protestants, may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law. 8. That election of members of parliament ought to be free. 9. That the freedom of speech, and debates or proceedings in parliament, ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of parliament. 10. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed; nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. 11. That jurors ought to be duly impanelled and returned, and jurors which pass upon men in trials for high treason ought to be freeholders. 12. That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction, are illegal and void. 13. And that for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening, and preserving of the laws, parliaments ought to be held frequently. And they do claim, demand, and insist upon all and singular the premisses, as their undoubted rights and liberties; and that no declarations, judgments, doings or proceedings, to the prejudice of the people in any of the said premisses, ought in any wise to be drawn hereafter into consequence or example. VI. Now in pursuance of the premisses, the said lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, in parliament assembled, for the ratifying, confirming and establishing the said declaration, and the articles, clauses, matters, and things therein contained, by the force of a law made in due form by authority of parliament, do pray that it may be declared and enacted, That all and singular the rights and liberties asserted and claimed in the said declaration, are the true, ancient, and indubitable rights and liberties of the people of this kingdom, and so shall be esteemed, allowed, adjudged, deemed, and taken to be, and that all and every the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed, as they are expressed in the said declaration; and all officers and ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majesties and their successors according to the same in all times to come. . . . XI. All which their Majesties are contented and pleased shall be declared, enacted, and established by authority of this present parliament, and shall stand, remain, and be the law of this realm for ever; and the same are by their said Majesties, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, in parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, declared, enacted, and established accordingly. -drl
Post #145,193 by deSitter 3/10/04 1:22:01 AM Reply	Interesting sidenote The right to bear arms and the suspicion of standing armies in peacetime arises from the same constellation of abuse. So, the "right to bear arms" originally meant "right of Protestants to defend themselves against the already armed Papists (Catholics)". It was NOT meant as a right of the people to defend themselves against intrusive government, as militias would have you believe. It was tacitly assumed the government would not become intrusive to that extent, and the loyalty of the People to that government was tacitly assumed to be absolute. It is also interesting how the deep suspicion of standing professional armies (and I believe an armed and all-powerful police force would have qualified) has been all but forgotton, to our enormous cost. How long will it take for other rights to morph into unrecognizable form? -drl
Post #145,181 by orion 3/10/04 12:21:37 AM Reply	Vauge language However, the language in the Bill of Rights was still vague and open to interpretation. Which causes a problem, and leaves it open to interpritation, and hence the problems we are having with it. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #145,182 by Another Scott 3/10/04 12:28:19 AM Reply	Um, all speech and writing is subject to interpretation. "It depends on what the meaning of the word [link\|http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/21/newsid_2525000/2525339.stm\|'is'] is." Cheers, Scott.
Post #145,322 by danreck 3/10/04 1:59:04 PM Reply	You b*3tard... The day the American justice system died... You linked it... Just a few thoughts, Danno
Post #145,495 by Another Scott 3/10/04 10:41:59 PM Reply	Not meant to cause offense. I thought it was the perfect illustration of the fact that a very simple sentence can mean different things to different people. Whether you agree with Clinton's weasling or not, it shows that words have to be interpreted in some context. Similarly with the Constitution. Cheers, Scott.
Post #145,187 by deSitter 3/10/04 12:42:13 AM Reply	Not in the current context Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Let's translate from 18th to 21st century English: Congress will not enact laws having the following purposes; to favor a particular religion, or to prohibit religious practice; to restrict free speech or the free reporting of news; to inhibit the right of people to gather together peaceably for any purpose; or to call on the Government to take corrective action in case these rights are violated. It is not language that is at fault - it is the spirit of those who read not for understanding, but for personal advantage. -drl
Post #145,259 by orion 3/10/04 11:39:23 AM Reply	Your interpritation tends to make more sense. Congress will not enact laws having the following purposes; to favor a particular religion, or to prohibit religious practice; to restrict free speech or the free reporting of news; to inhibit the right of people to gather together peaceably for any purpose; or to call on the Government to take corrective action in case these rights are violated. Now then, please show me where Congress made a law that violated that recently. Also explain how it can apply to a court judge when it clearly states "Congress will not..." and not "The Government will not..." do those sort of things. It is not language that is at fault - it is the spirit of those who read not for understanding, but for personal advantage. I am trying to understand it, thanks to your translation it makes better sense now. I am confused by the "Congress will not..." part and how it applies to other parts of the government. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #145,066 by Silverlock 3/9/04 5:21:14 PM Reply	Can't take the time for an appropriate clue bashfest Maybe instead of critical thinking you should take a course on cluelessness and its symptoms. ----------------------------------------- "If you don't vote, it's your fault!" -jb4 George W. "I cannot tell a lie" George W. B. "I cannot tell a lie from lie related program activities"
Post #145,185 by orion 3/10/04 12:36:42 AM Reply	If you cannot answer the question I understand. It is, after all, a hot topic. One I am trying to learn more about. Thanks for your help on the matter. You have provided some useful information on the various attitudes that some people have on this issue. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #146,130 by Silverlock 3/14/04 8:14:34 AM Reply	I'm not sure what your question actually is. But in case you are asking more than why the exact phrase "Separation Of Church and State" doesn't appear in the constitution, I'll throw you a bone. This article says it better than I can- Much misinformation about the history behind separation of church and state may be traced to David Barton, a Texas-based propagandist who attacks separation of church and state in books and videos. Barton's materials contain numerous errors, distortions and half truths. His book The Myth of Separation, although heavily footnoted, is riddled with factual errors. Nevertheless, Barton's revisionist history is appearing with increasing frequency in Far Right circles and is leaching into the secular media by right-wing activists who write letters to the editor and op-ed columns regurgitating Barton's bad history. <snip> MYTH: Separation of church and state is not in the U.S. Constitution. 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, the-president Thomas Jefferson declared that the American people through the First Amendment had erected a "wall of separation between church and state," echoing religious freedom advocate Roger Williams who a century earlier alluded to the "hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world." James Madison, considered to be the Father of the Constitution and author of the First Amendment, said in an 1819 letter, "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....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." <snip> (the author of the preceeding work has granted full permission to reproduce in whole or in part: Rob Boston Americans United for Separation of Church and State Silver Spring, Maryland [link\|http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/9917/ffc/badconstitution.html\|http://www.geocities...constitution.html] A copy of the original piece (the author's yahoo link is dead) can be found [link\|http://bartcopnation.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=8&topic_id=3&mesg_id=3&page=6\|here] ----------------------------------------- "If you don't vote, it's your fault!" -jb4 George W. "I cannot tell a lie" George W. B. "I cannot tell a lie from lie related program activities"
Post #145,101 by Ashton 3/9/04 7:18:14 PM Reply	sepArate <<<_______grating, that___over and over and___
Post #145,143 by ChrisR 3/9/04 9:12:49 PM Reply	Perhaps that explains why the search came up empty?
Post #145,159 by Another Scott 3/9/04 10:47:28 PM Reply	16,300 hits in Google. :-/
Post #145,163 by ChrisR 3/9/04 10:53:23 PM Reply	Did you mean: separation of church and state? Guess Ashton's gonna be busy correcting a lot of mispells. :-)
Post #145,165 by Another Scott 3/9/04 11:01:04 PM Reply	Yup. ;-) [link\|http://www.google.com/search?q=seperation+of+church+and+state&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8\|Google search]. The correct spelling gives me 559,000 hits. Cheers, Scott.

Welcome to IWETHEY!