ForumGarden

FredFlash

<t>FredFlash quoting Stephen Mansfield wrote: Breaking legal precedent, the Supreme Court exchanged Jefferson's words for the first 10 words of the First Amendment. The phrase "separation between church and state" â€” which had appeared in neither the Constitution nor the debates that pr...

FredFlash

<t>Fred Flash quoting Stephen Mansfield wrote: It was not his [Thomas Jefferson's words that carried the force of law â€” written as they were 14 years after the Constitution was ratified â€” but rather the 10 words that are undoubtedly the most tortured in our history: Congress shall ma...

FredFlash

spot;675434 wrote: It makes for a very disjointed conversation when you subsequently walk away from the statement and leave it orphaned.

You got a point there, dude. I was hoping someone would endorse the author's views so I could jump him.

FredFlash

spot;672356 wrote: Then - pardon my obtuse nature - why did you post it?

Is there a rule that says I can only post opinions I agree with?

FredFlash

<t>spot;672058 wrote: Then in what way is it true that "religious leaders are threatened if they dare speak about political issues from their pulpits"? Beats me, dude. I think the essay is pure propaganda. Mansfield commences his propaganda piece, by tossing a tub to the...

FredFlash

<t>spot;670877 wrote: How does that work, Fred? I can see that the church which owns the pulpit might lose its charitable tax exemption if the politicial issues were addressed in a partisan manner, approbating one party or politician, but that doesn't qualify as "threatened" does it? <br...

FredFlash

<r>The Founders Got It Right Religion now rests in a tortured place in society today, thanks largely to unfortunate and misguided rulings of the Supreme Court. By Stephen Mansfield Two days after he wrote the famous words "separation between church and state" in an 1...

FredFlash

<t>RedGlitter;496320 wrote: Steven Waldman on America as a Christian Nation (Beliefnet.com) Most Americans Say Itâ€™s a 'Christian Nation' Alas, the Founding Fathers wouldnâ€™t agree. The Washington Post recently asked a group of w...

FredFlash

<t>telaquapacky wrote: The myth is really only viable because most people have forgotten what an Ã¢â‚¬Å“establishmentÃ¢â‚¬Â of religion is. The prohibition is on all forms of religious establishment, including Christianity. The founders were well aware of what it would mean to establish religion. B...

FredFlash

<t>I have investigated the claims of Chief Justice Warren Burger regarding the compensation of the Chaplains to the the First U. S. Congress, and the opening of daily assemblies of the U. S. Senate and House of Representative with prayers by Chaplains to the First U. S. Congress (1789 - 1791). ...

FredFlash

<r>Jives wrote: Military always recognizes military. LOl. Tough job, you have my respect. Well, I don't have it as bad as the Science teachers trying to teach evolution. But tryng to teach children about a mathematically ordered Universe without mentioning the fact that there...

FredFlash

<t>Jives wrote: On the other hand, I had to fire a teacher once who was heard saying to her class, "OK, so we all agree that Satan exists, that we are servants of Satan, and that we are all sinners..." This sword cuts both ways. You don't want to excise religion out of society totally, bu...

FredFlash

<r>Jives wrote: T-38 Talons, mostly. I was an instructor at Vance AFB in Oklahoma. I flew F-15 Eagles out of Kirtland AFB in the Reserves. I'm old and inactive now, just your average ground-bound math teacher. Affirmative. It's a special school for children who were retained in the 8th gr...

FredFlash

<r>Jives wrote: Since I'm right on the battlefield in this topic, I have to tell you that I have a wonderful Hindu kid in my class whose parents are doctors in our community. He's a neat kid, and as All-American as they come. During the Christmas season, he didn't complain a bit about all...

FredFlash

<r>ChiptBeef wrote: I never claimed they were, but there opinions on the matter could be considered as part of a reasonable debate, given their place in history. Please provide internet links to support your claims of against Chief Justice John Jay. John Jay had the confidence of the majo...

FredFlash

<t>ChiptBeef wrote: That's nice and lawyerly. The question remains; Do you support atheist Newdow's law suits to have "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" from our money? Yes or no. If you show me the precise law suits you refer to, I will examine ...

FredFlash

<r>ChiptBeef wrote: That's not the only standard for acceptability into the category of "Founding Father." Besides, your opinion is incorrect regarding these two patriots input into the framing of our controlling historical documents. John Jay is viewed by many as a Founding Father based...

FredFlash

<r>ChiptBeef wrote: Madison disagrees. "In later years, when he was referred to as the "Father of the Constitution," Madison protested that the document was not "the off-spring of a single brain," but "the work of many heads and many hands." <URL url="http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/pr...

FredFlash

<r>ChiptBeef wrote: FredFlash - While your getting your documents together to post to support your claim, I've got a question. In Post #186 of this thread, you wrote "the pledge of allegence includes an affirmation of belief in God... and is therefore a violation of the establishment clau...

FredFlash

<t>ChiptBeef wrote: I'm not your legal secretary. In post #184 in this thread, you wrote "I am a lawyer..." What law school did you attend? When did you graduate? Where do you practice law? What is your legal specialty? Answer those simple questions with documentable evidence, then I will take your ...

FredFlash

<t>ChiptBeef wrote: Since you have obviously lost your lawyerly knowledge for a brief instant, please enjoy the following: From The Oxford Companion to American Law, Edited By Kermit L. Hall, Page 639 to 640. "PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES.""The Constitution of the United States de...

FredFlash

<t>Benjamin wrote: I agree. Our founding fathers did intend for there to be a separation of church and state, however, and the anti-abortion stand is rooted in religion. So, from that perspective, it is a constitutional right. What is a constitutional right? The right n...

FredFlash

ChiptBeef wrote: I never personally claimed a prayer was offered at the First Congress. But your link proves a chaplain was on the government payroll at the time. Thanks for the back up.

Yep. Now tell me what the Chaplains did for their $250 a year.

Fred

FredFlash

<r>Bronwen wrote: Both, while not attempting to split hairs. I was responding to another poster's contention that no such thing existed until 1947. Ok thanks. Thomas Jefferson did not invent the legal concept of Separation of Church (Religion) and State (Government); he b...

FredFlash

<r>Dear ChiptBeef: The Senate and House of the First U. S. Congress paid their Chaplains $250 for a typical year where Congress was in session for six months. In some years they were paid less and at least one Chaplain was paid some extra money. Congressmen were paid $1,098 for a typical ...

FredFlash

Accountable wrote: Congrats, Fred. You have 15 posts and can post links now, I believe.

Zippy!

FredFlash

Bronwen wrote: 1. Chipper, the 'wall of separation' goes back to Jefferson.

Are you referring to the legal principle or the label stamped on it?

Fred

FredFlash

<t>Accountable wrote: Congress has chaplains. They pray before starting business. The President places his hand on a Bible to be sworn in "So Help Me God." Every courtroom in America has witnesses place their left hand on the Bible to swear to tell the truth before testifying (although they may have...

FredFlash

<t>ChiptBeef wrote: Our federal House of Representatives and Senate open every day's business with a prayer led by a House or Senate Chaplain. Sometimes, guest clergy are allowed to lead those bodies in prayer. It is looked upon as a high honor for clergy in the field to be called upon in such a man...

FredFlash

<t>ChiptBeef wrote: The 14th Amendment was adopted on July 21, 1868 with the intent of providing civil rights to former slaves. In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Supreme Court comingled the 14th and 1st Amendment by claiming the 14th Amendment now allowed the Court to apply the 1st Amendm...

FredFlash

<t>ChiptBeef wrote: I never quoted from the opinion. You're trying to put words in my mouth. I merely wrote of the results, in a general sense, which is proven by the facts of the case. Prior to the 1947 Everson case, "separation of church and state" was left up to the states to define. It was the 1...

FredFlash

<t>Accountable wrote: My stand is that churches provide a moral anchor that influences our general culture. One doesn't have to attend church to be influenced by it. It's just that simple. The danger I see is that some groups are so zealous in their fight to get religion out of gov't, they are pushi...

FredFlash

<t>Bronwen wrote: Thanks for the clarification! Now I understand your position perfectly. I use the terms "advisory power" and "authority to recommend" to mean non-coersive methods used by the government to influence the duty that we owe to the Creator. I assume that the issue of go...

FredFlash

<t>Dear ChiptBeef: The Reynolds Court said nothing about our government being obligated to enforce civil law in keeping with basic Christian tenets; the Reynolds Court said nothing about polygamy and bigamy violating general Christian principles; and the Reynolds Court did not even use th...

FredFlash

<t>Clint wrote: Is it your view that because government is not to influence religion that religion is not to influence government? James Madison and lots of others defined the word "religon" in the establishment clause to mean, "the duty that we owe to the Creator." Madison held tha...

FredFlash

<t>telaquapacky wrote: In light of the slow-but-sure Nazi-like seizure of power in America by the so-called Ã¢â‚¬Å“ChristianÃ¢â‚¬Â right, I think itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s important for us to understand constitutional religious liberty issues more clearly. IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m sharing here a religious liberty bulletin I r...

FredFlash

<t>Adam Zapple wrote: True story: My sixth grader, out of the blue one day, started telling me about Islam. "Did you know muslms believe......?" "Did you know Mohammed......?" "Did you know muslims believe Jesus was.....?" I asked her where she was learning this; she said school. I asked if they tol...

FredFlash

<t>Adam Zapple wrote: Some of us are critical of the way Jefferson's metaphor of a seperating wall has been used to attempt to squash all public aknowledgment of religious faith. As for me, that does not mean I support the forceful teaching of religion in schools or the coercive implemen...

FredFlash

<t>Sunday Mail Delivery Dispute Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Source of Information Presented below is an excerpt from Col. JohnsonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s (Representing Kentucky in the House Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Chairman of House Post Office Committee) famous report on various petitions praying for repeal of the post-office law author...

FredFlash

<t>I thank you for your welcome. My view is that the pledge of allegence includes an affirmation of belief in God; the federal legislation that recommends it be recited daily is an establishment of the duty that we owe to the Creator; and is therefore a violation of the establsihment clau...

FredFlash

<t>Accountable wrote: FredFlash, Pretty impressive first post. What is a "religious recommendation" as you use the phrase? Also, where'd all this come from? if you're a historian that is beyond cool, as we have a couple others and it makes for great conversation. If it's someone else's research, I'd...

FredFlash

<t>To ChiptBeef: The religion clauses are the establishment clause and the free exercise clause; what is a principled opinion; what are your concerns about a "wall of separation"; the Supreme Court quoted Jefferson's wall metaphor sixty nine years before Everson v. Board of Education, in ...

FredFlash

<t>ChiptBeef wrote: I believe the "wall of separation" was a mere edict via legislation from the bench (Supreme Court) in 1947. How is it that we can't have prayer led in school, but our government officials can have prayer led in their government buildings? Case in point: The Virginia General Assem...

Search found 43 matches