Text 8683, 175 rader
Skriven 2005-02-05 04:32:54 av John Hull (1:379/1.99)
   Kommentar till text 8613 av Darryl Perry (1:106/324)
Ärende: Re: Unborn
==================
04 Feb 05 14:16, Darryl Perry wrote to John Hull:

 DP> On 02-03-05, John Hull said...

 JH>> 03 Feb 05 12:54, Darryl Perry wrote to John Hull:

 JH>>  JH>> reported on as well.  Every time we turn around, some ACLU 
 JH>>  JH>> liberal is fili suit to get prayer squelched somewhere, or 
 JH>>  JH>> prevent a Nativity scene from b put up at Xmas, or get the 
 JH>>  JH>> 10 Commandments removed from the wall of a cour house.  It 
 JH>>  JH>> isn't so much that they've reported on Christian bashing as 
 JH>>  JH>> the have appearing to support it.
 JH>> 
 JH>>  DP> You patently forgot to mention that all those areas were 
 JH>>  DP> public areas, not private areas.  Forced prayer in school is 
 JH>>  DP> ok if it is a private school.
 JH>> 
 JH>> There is not and never has been "forced prayer" in public schools. 
 JH>>  Nor do the Constitution, IN ANY WAY, prohibit prayer in schools.  
 JH>> Not even one io worth.

 DP> We seem to be doing a lot of assertions of what the Constitution 
 DP> will NOT do
 DP> for the other side.  I think we've quite established those points.

 JH>>  DP> I've got stories that a friend of mine was telling me.  She 
 JH>>  DP> got relocated here to the bible-belt of Houston like I did, 
 JH>>  DP> and now her c
 JH>> 
 JH>>  DP> is being castigated for not participating in the required 
 JH>>  DP> prayer time his school.
 JH>> 
 JH>> If there is a required prayer time, then it isn't a public school. 
 JH>>  Its a private church affiliated school, possibly Catholic or 
 JH>> Lutheran.  In any c that is hearsay and not admissable as proof of 
 JH>> anything.

 JH>>  DP> The militant right strikes again!  Courthouses are places of 
 JH>>  DP> Justice, and justice is supposed to be blind.  Our country 
 JH>>  DP> was founde with the bill of rights which is a proclimation of 
 JH>>  DP> how justice can be
 JH>> be 
 JH>>  DP> served for our people.  The 10 commandments are not of the 10 
 JH>> ammendments.  
 JH>>  DP> If anything should be place at the courthouse, it's the Bill 
 JH>>  DP> of Right
 JH>> 
 JH>> You obviously don't know anything of the history of English common 
 JH>> law and Magna Carta, which forms the basis of American law in the 
 JH>> colonies, and subsequently US law as codified in the Constitution.  
 JH>> There has NEVER BEEN PROHIBITION of religion, prayer, the 10 
 JH>> Commandments, or anything else in vein.  I invite you to prove 
 JH>> otherwise if you think you are able.

 DP> I'm not going to take up that gauntlet, as it is not germain to my 
 DP> point. That seems to be your tangent, so I'll leave you to continue 
 DP> ranting about it.  However, see my statement above, and to paraphrase 
 DP> myself ;) ;while the Constitution does not have any prohibition to 
 DP> religion, it does not offer any guarantees to it either, other than the 
 DP> right to practice whichever religion a person chooses.  Up to and 
 DP> including no religion at all. 

I'm not the one who brought up the subject of religious prohibitions, you did.
All I've done is point out that if there is any prohibition going on, it is due
to the actions of those on the left trying to eradicate any semblance of
religion in our daily lives.

 JH>>  JH>> This country was founded by Christians of various 
 JH>>  JH>> denominations who left England because they didn't want to 
 JH>>  JH>> be forced to pray in the state sponsor Church of England.  
 JH>>  JH>> That's why the 1st Amendment carries a prohibition aga
 JH>> 
 JH>>  DP> Your words: "Not wanteing to be forced in to prayer" still 
 JH>>  DP> holds true. Freedom FROM religion is as fundimental as 
 JH>>  DP> freedom OF religion. Nowhere in that 1st Amendment does it say 
 JH>>  DP> that a citizen MUST adhear ANY religion.
 JH>> 
 JH>> You left out the rest of the sentence.  I said "didn't want to be 
 JH>> forced t pray in the state sponsored Church of England."

 DP> If you want to make it a point that it only pertains to state 
 DP> sponsord churches, or the Church of England, I'll let you.  But since 
 DP> there are no 'state' sponsered churches, then the point is moot.  The fear

 DP> of the other camp is that there is a drive to actually create a state 
 DP> sponsered church.

The obvious fear of the left of anything religious, particularly christian, is
completely irrational.  The people who file lawsuits to get nativity scenes
removed from public property, or carvings of the 10 commandments removed from
courthouses, etc., are a relatively small minority.  But a far larger
percentage are so ignorant of our history and of our founding documents that
they don't know anything about the role religion played in the founding of this
country, so they go along with the seemingly reasonable charges of the
radicals.  Trying to sanitize the country of religion, which was an integral
part of the lives of the founders is not only denying history but is simply
wrong.

 JH>>  JH>> state-sponsored religion.  It says NOTHING, however, about 
 JH>>  JH>> requiring a separation of church and state.  That phrase was 
 JH>>  JH>> lifted from a private let that Thomas Jefferson wrote to a 
 JH>>  JH>> Baptist minister, and even then it is lif out of context.
 JH>> 
 JH>>  DP> Regardless, there is NOTHING in the Constitution and the Bill 
 JH>>  DP> of rights that guarantees that one religious factor can 
 JH>>  DP> elevate their ag
 JH>> 
 JH>>  DP> over another.
 JH>> 
 JH>> Regardless nothing.  You liberals love to quote that separation of 
 JH>> church state garbage, but it had no legal substance then, and it 
 JH>> doesn't now, regardless of what the USSC says.  And, I don't see 
 JH>> any denomination tryin elevate itself over the rest, unless you are 
 JH>> referring to Islam.

 DP> You are going on a tangent again.  It was you who made the 
 DP> comments about liberals trying to remove or bar statues of the 10 
 DP> commandments in front of courthouses.  It was you who made the comments 
 DP> about liberals halting prayers at school.  My comments were that 
 DP> conservatives who claim to follow Jesus's teachings weren't always doing 
 DP> so.  My question to you about prayers in schools and statues in front of 
 DP> courthouses.... How does advocating those things show that you are 
 DP> following Jesus's teachings?  How is objecting to them NOT following his 
 DP> teachings?

This has nothing to do with Jesus' teachings, either pro or con, and I have not
advocated or opposed such in any way.

 JH>>  DP> Christian tho the FF's may have been, the Country they 
 JH>>  DP> founded was no a
 JH>>  DP> country based on religion.
 JH>> 
 JH>> You had better go back and read what the Founders had to say, 
 JH>> then, becaus that is pure poppycock

 DP> I've read the constitution, and the bill of rights.  I'm still 
 DP> looking for any evidence about anything to do about religion, other than 
 DP> the 1st ammendment.

You've just made my point for me.  You've read the Constitution - fine.  But
you have failed to take into account the factors that led up to the creation of
those documents.  You can't discount the role religion played in the lives of
those who wrote those documents, in the lives of the populace at large, or how
it affected the political atmosphere in which those documents were created. 
Every single word owes its presence to the things that influenced the lives of
the authors, so to try to remove an integral part of THEIR life and experience
guts the meaning of what is on that parchment that we revere so much.

If you want to remedy that, start reading what the Founders wrote - their
diaries, correspondence, essays, etc., as well as the books that THEY read and
based their philosophy on.  Without that foundation, you can't have more than a
superficial understanding of what went into the writing of the Declaration of
Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.  There are also a
number of books written during the first 50-75 years of our country ABOUT the
men who we call Founding Fathers, and about the system they created.

Four that I can highly recommend are:

1. Two Treatises on Government by John Locke, 1821.
2. The Framing and The Fathers of the Constitution by Max Farrand, 1913.
3. On the Constitution of the United States by Chief Justice Joseph Story,
1840.
4. The Federalist by Madison, Hamilton, and Jay, 1780s.

All of the above, and several others, are available as fine, high grade leather
bound reproductions (in original style and fonts) from Palladium Press.


John 

America:  First, Last, and Always!
Go to www.madgorilla.us for all your Domain Name Services at the lowest rates.

--- Msged/386 TE 05
 * Origin:  (1:379/1.99)