Posted on 11/12/2005 8:19:25 AM PST by Michael_Michaelangelo
No. It is not. If you read my post again,(here it is)
|
To: trashcanbred; Batrachian
The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. Also known as "separation of church and state".
Yeah, right. The crier says, "God save the United States and this honorable court." |
you may notice no mention of Bible reading. Rather you will find a comment demonstrating your misguided reading of the Constitution. There is no separation of church and state mentioned anywhere in that document. It does mention that no law respecting an establishment of religion can be passed by Congress. That is what this argument is about. And at the moment you are on the side of Kennedy, Schumer and their ilk who think that judges can read whatever they want into the Constitution. They are going to make a great attempt to defeat Alito because of his viewpoint that you don't read things into the Constitution that are not there.
And no, I did not try to bolster my argument by quoting a law. I provided a background for the images I posted. Do you see a quote of a law here or a quote of the webpage pointed to by the link above my quote...(repeated here)
| http://www.nd.edu/~rbarger/www7/neprimer.html In the 1700's schools in the colonies were strongly influenced by religion. It was the intent of the colonists that all children should learn to read and in 1642 Puritan Massachusetts passed a law stating this. They believed that an inability to read was Satan's attempt to keep people from the Scriptures. |
This quote was to give background to the NEP and the next paragraph, from a different source, gave how it was used and who used it. Now that is three sources, one more pointing to the page having links for the images, for the NEP to show that separation of church and state was not in the Constitution up to the 20th century. You will note that the 14th amendment was ratifed in 1868. This supposed law of the land(separation of church and state) was not discovered until 1947 tracing its validity to an amendment ratified 79 years prior. Lots of dumb justices were in office during that period. We have a similar situation now. Congress is ready to pass a law because the Supreme Court again imagined a power not in the Constitution, the ability for a government to take the property of an individual and cede it to another individual.
Now as to your red herring. I will not answer it, until you concede that the words "separation of church and state" are nowhere to be found in the United States Constitution.
Sure... I will concede if it will get you to answer my question about why you want to teach my children the bible in school when I don't want you to. In the end that is really all I want to know.
I will take that as answering that the Constitution does not say anything about "separation of church and state"
I never said anything about teaching your kids the Bible even if it was with your consent. I do not think your children should be taught counter to your feelings. However, I do believe it is appropriate to study the Bible in school. That does not mean an attempt should be made to convert your children. In cases where the school district has chosen to teach about the Bible, or Koran, or Sacred Hindu texts, or Navajo beliefs etc, a suitable alternate topic should be available for those children whose parents do not agree with the religious subjects being covered. The appropriate place for full Bible study is Sunday School whether that is Baptist, Methodist, LDS, or etc.
Well... I agreed it does not explicitly but it does implicitly. The equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th amendment applies the establishment clause to the states in addition to congress. Look you can argue with me about this all you want, but this is what every court in the US goes by. Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas seemed to have no trouble applying due process and equal protection clauses to justify the remedy in Bush v. Gore in 2000. I did not hear a peep out of Rush or Hannity on State's rights then, did you?
It is the same thing with the term "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". Does it exist anywhere in the US Constitution? Nope... but the Supreme Court explicitly held that it does via the due process clause.
Look many cases are decided in the US by interpretation of the law, especially when it is a constitutional case. That is how it has worked here and Great Britain for a very long time.
Anyway thanks for not wanting to convert my children. If I seemed angry, then you were correct.
Well, I answered you truthfully. You are now showing your deceit. End of exchange.
P.S. beyond a reasonable doubt is common law. And, no, not every judge agrees with what you stated about reading things into the constitution. That is why we have controversy at every conservative judicial nomination. There is no controversy over whether women have a right to vote. That is indisputably in the Constitution.
Quite a post RA. I had to let this incubate in my head for a day before it started to make sense. I read back when the tsunami hit Indonesia? it actually caused a small wobble in the earth's axis. I think of it as those balloon balls they used to make that had a weight inside them that when thrown they wobbled so much it was much harder to catch. In viewing this with the tides it makes sense that the moon and Earth would change their relationship with each other.
The last part of your more than I bargained for post I have taken in as head knowledge without much understanding. Seems as nature abhors a vaccuum (so much for outer space) it also abhors being out of balance. Thanks for the post.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.