A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

About those anti-aviatoin newsgroups



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 19th 03, 12:36 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


  #2  
Old August 19th 03, 05:57 PM
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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


  #3  
Old August 19th 03, 06:14 PM
Newps
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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.

  #4  
Old August 19th 03, 06:21 PM
Ron Natalie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.



  #5  
Old August 19th 03, 06:16 PM
Ron Natalie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


  #6  
Old August 19th 03, 06:21 PM
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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


  #7  
Old August 19th 03, 06:26 PM
Ron Natalie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ...
"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.

Then I don't understand you point. The ammendement says congress may not
establish a religion. Do you think that the rule is limitted to a national religion or
congress establishing one for Maryland alone?


  #8  
Old August 20th 03, 12:21 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Stupid Question About Newsgroups RST Engineering General Aviation 1 January 17th 05 05:59 PM
Re; What do you think? Kelsibutt Naval Aviation 0 September 29th 03 06:55 AM
Newsgroups and Email Jim Weir Home Built 8 July 8th 03 11:30 PM
Newsgroups and Email Jim Weir Owning 8 July 8th 03 11:30 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.