About those anti-aviatoin newsgroups

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 18:44:26 GMT, Newps wrote:



Peter Duniho wrote:
"Robert Perkins" wrote in message
...

Separation of Church and State is not constitutional language.


Of course it is. The exact words "separation of church and state" don't
appear, of course. But the intent is clear.

And just out of curiosity how do you feel about the second ammendment?

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Seems clear enough to me.

Rob, in favor of firearm licenses, prohibition to felons, taxes and
fees on firearms, and education requirements

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

Of course it is. The exact words "separation of church and state" don't
appear, of course. But the intent is clear.


The exact words are, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". The intent is
clearly to prevent the US Congress from making a law establishing a national
religion or any law prohibiting the free exercise of one's religion.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
k.net...
The exact words are, "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". The intent is
clearly to prevent the US Congress from making a law establishing a
national
religion or any law prohibiting the free exercise of one's religion.

Seems to me "respecting an establishment of religion" refers to laws based
on religion, not the establishment of a national religion. If they wanted
to limit it to prohibiting only the establishment of a national religion,
they would have written "THE establishment of A NATIONAL religion", not "an
establishment of religion".

Don't worry though...I know that you'll disagree 'til you're blue in the
face. So feel free to disagree once again. Don't bother me none. There is
ample interpretive precedent that disagrees with you, and I have no need to
engage in a futile effort to change your mind.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:


Seems to me "respecting an establishment of religion" refers to laws based
on religion, not the establishment of a national religion. If they wanted
to limit it to prohibiting only the establishment of a national religion,
they would have written "THE establishment of A NATIONAL religion", not "an
establishment of religion".

You'd think that. England had/has a national religion. We wanted to
avoid that. It could have been written a whole lot clearer, just like
the second ammendment could have been written clearer, even though the
intent is obvious. I suspect they thought it was plenty clear at the
time they wrote and approved it.

"Newps" wrote in message news:SVs0b.202258$uu5.36211@sccrnsc04...

You'd think that. England had/has a national religion.

and not just England. Every major European power at the time had an
established religion.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ...
If they wanted
to limit it to prohibiting only the establishment of a national religion,
they would have written "THE establishment of A NATIONAL religion", not "an
establishment of religion".

National would be redundant. Establishment doesn't mean "creation" in this
context, it means giving official recognition by the government. Since the constitution
lays out the powers and limitations of the NATIONAL government, that's pretty much
what they mean.

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
. ..
National would be redundant. Establishment doesn't mean "creation" in
this
context, it means giving official recognition by the government.

And would not a law passed based solely on religious beliefs be "official
recognition"?

I agree that establishment doesn't mean creation in this context. That was
my point.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

Seems to me "respecting an establishment of religion" refers to laws based
on religion, not the establishment of a national religion. If they wanted
to limit it to prohibiting only the establishment of a national religion,
they would have written "THE establishment of A NATIONAL religion", not
"an
establishment of religion".


It's the US Congress, Peter, that's the national government.



Don't worry though...I know that you'll disagree 'til you're blue in the
face. So feel free to disagree once again. Don't bother me none. There
is
ample interpretive precedent that disagrees with you, and I have no need
to
engage in a futile effort to change your mind.


It's not me you're disagreeing with, Peter, you're disagreeing with the 1st
Amendment.

The rest of it is well-trod ground, but some if it is worth answering.

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 11:19:31 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

"Robert Perkins" wrote in message
.. .
Separation of Church and State is not constitutional language.

Of course it is. The exact words "separation of church and state" don't
appear, of course. But the intent is clear.

Heh. If the intent were clear, there wouldn't be differences of
opinion on how to interpret it.

By and large, I've seen the Supreme Court treat the Establishment
Clause with great care. "Congress shall make no law respecting the
establishment of religion" *used* to mean, to so many people, that
Congress was not permitted to set up a Church of the United States.

So many people today forget that the clause ends in "or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof." The Supreme Court decision upholding the
notion that large traditional folkways such as marriage as defined by
most people throughout history trump Article IV is one such careful
consideration. States may solmenize gay marriage, or not, and may
recognize it, or not, but

You forgot to put "proof" in quotes.

Probably because I think that we are worse off today the way things
are concerning easy divorce as implemented than was true 40 years ago.

but they are people who probably will never understand what it takes to
allow a marriage to work.

Wait until you do understand, then marry. If necessary, court for a
year or more. (No, I'm *not* a fan of Dr. Laura, but what she says
makes sense in this one narrow instance.)

I don't see how expanding marriage to include gay couples is anywhere near
as radical a change as allowing divorce to be easier. If anything, it
allows a larger portion of society to return to our basic ideals.

Statistically speaking, no, it does not.

You've responded to one.

Please.

Please indeed. Before you proceed any further along the strawman, best
you check my taglines in posts from this week.

But were you really doing so honestly? I suppose in the end, only you can
answer for yourself, but it sure seems to me that you're using a large
helping of rationalization here. Are you really separating your religious
beliefs from your political motivations?

NO! And, you'll forgive me for shouting, but I actually think this is
important enough that I want to get everyone's attention:

WHY ON EARTH WOULD ANYONE IN HIS RIGHT MIND WANT TO SEPARATE HIS
RELIGIOUS BELIEFS FROM HIS POLITICAL MOTIVATIONS?!?!?!?!?

Good grief. Religious belief is fundamentally human! Separating
religious motivation from its expression in politics is the surest way
to get yourself manipulated out of a voice in the process!

Regardless, it certainly
offends me that he would sign such a bill.

Then you may be offended. And lest you be offended any more, I guess
I'll have to go back to plonking your email. Wouldn't want to offend
you, after all.

Rob

"Robert Perkins" wrote in message
news
[...]
Are you really separating your religious
beliefs from your political motivations?

NO!

Then how can you claim that your sole objection to those bills is that they
are changes?

Then you may be offended. And lest you be offended any more, I guess
I'll have to go back to plonking your email. Wouldn't want to offend
you, after all.

Ahh, yes...when all else fails, stop listening. That will keep your belief
system perfectly intact. Good for you.

Pete