Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

KISS THE NOTION OF SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE GOODBYE!!!
FR | 09/15/01 | ServesURight

Posted on 09/15/2001 10:31:50 AM PDT by ServesURight

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280281-285 last
To: 1L
nor do they even imply that

Legal education appears to be follwing the same trend as public schools.

281 posted on 09/16/2001 5:22:17 PM PDT by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

Comment #282 Removed by Moderator

To: eddie willers
Legal education appears to be follwing the same trend as public schools.

You are partially correct. However, just so you will know, the legal education as it relates to the first amendment usually espouses the view that you have. I have debunked that. You don't respond with any substance, so I guess you cry uncle. (BTW, don't be misled by the screen name: that was in 1998).

283 posted on 09/19/2001 9:39:03 AM PDT by 1L
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: 1L
Legal minds better than ours have wrangled with this question and come away disagreeing.
(along with what does the 'preamble' of the 2nd Amendment mean?)

In both instances I go with 'they mean what they say'.

1) "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".....
(ie Federal Goverment "Hands Off", although I will agree that they are trampling the ...."or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" side of the coin )

2) ..."the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

Peace be with you....

284 posted on 09/19/2001 11:45:50 AM PDT by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
1) "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"..... (ie Federal Goverment "Hands Off", although I will agree that they are trampling the ...."or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" side of the coin )

But it doesn't mean "hands off." What it meant in the late 18th Century was that the Federal Govt. should not and could not create laws that endangered religious establishments that were already in existence in states. Mass. had one such establishment until 1832. Other states had them, while others didn't. Federal court decisions started in the 1870s have used their own political views and those of Thomas Jefferson (who had as much to do with the creation of the first amendment as you and I had, and even said so) to justify a strict irreligious view of the religion clauses. Such views do not comport with the framers' views.

285 posted on 09/24/2001 12:01:28 PM PDT by 1L
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280281-285 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson