~ Bush: "I'm God's Delivery Boy" ~

Separation of church and state, anyone?

The president doesn't speak for the state in the same way that the Queen of
England does, for instance.

Abraham Lincoln:

``I have often wished I was a more devout man. Nevertheless, amid the great
difficulties of my administration, when I could not see any other resort, I
would place my whole reliance in God, knowing all would go well and that He
would decide for the right.''


When asked if he believed ``the Lord was on the Union's side,'' he replied, ``I
am not at all concerned about that, for I know that the Lord is always on the
right side. It is my constant anxiety and prayer that I and this nation should
be on His side.''

Also consider:

"I have not forgotten--probably never shall forget--the very impressive
occasion when yourself and friends visited me on a Sabbath forenoon two years
ago. Nor has your kind letter, written nearly a year later, ever been
forgotten. In all, it has been your purpose to strengthen my reliance on God. I
am much indebted to the good Christian people of the country for their constant
prayers and consolations; and to no one of them, more than to yourself. The
purposes of the Almighty are perfect, and must prevail, though we erring
mortals may fail to accurately perceive them in advance.

We hoped for a happy termination of this terrible war long before this; but God
knows best, and has ruled otherwise. We shall yet acknowledge His wisdom and
our own error therein. Meanwhile we must work earnestly in the best light He
gives us, trusting that so working still conduces to the great ends He ordains.
Surely He intends some great good to follow this mighty convulsion, which no
mortal could make, and no mortal could stay."

Abraham Lincoln Letter to Eliza Gurney, September 4, 1864.

"We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of heaven; we have been
preserved these many years in peace and prosperity; we have grown in numbers,
wealth and power as no nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God.
Intoxicated with unbroken successes, we have become too self-sufficient to feel
the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God
that made us. It behooves us, then, to humble ourselves before the offended
power, to confess our national sins, and to pray for clemency and forgiveness."


--A. Lincoln March 30, 1863


The framers wanted Americans to have freedom -of- religion, not freedom -from-
religion.

Walt

WalterM140 wrote:

Separation of church and state, anyone?

The president doesn't speak for the state in the same way that the Queen of
England does, for instance.

Lincoln quotes snipped

The framers wanted Americans to have freedom -of- religion, not freedom -from-
religion.

In order to have freedom -of- religion, one must also have the option of freedom
-from- religion, or no freedom exists.

Guy (a life-long agnostic)

In order to have freedom -of- religion, one must also have the option of
freedom
-from- religion, or no freedom exists.

Guy (a life-long agnostic)

That simply didn't occur to the framers of the Constitution, no matter how near
and dear to your heart.

Every session of the Constitutional Convention began with prayer.

Walt

Guy Alcala wrote:

WalterM140 wrote:

Separation of church and state, anyone?

The president doesn't speak for the state in the same way that the Queen of
England does, for instance.

Lincoln quotes snipped

The framers wanted Americans to have freedom -of- religion, not freedom -from-
religion.

In order to have freedom -of- religion, one must also have the option of freedom
-from- religion, or no freedom exists.

Guy (a life-long agnostic)

That's akin to saying that freedom doesn't exist unless everyone
is free to do whatever they wish. I don't think that I'd like to
live in a country where that was the case, would you?.
--

-Gord.

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 17:47:24 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
wrote:

Guy Alcala wrote:

WalterM140 wrote:

Separation of church and state, anyone?

The president doesn't speak for the state in the same way that the Queen of
England does, for instance.

Lincoln quotes snipped

The framers wanted Americans to have freedom -of- religion, not freedom -from-
religion.

In order to have freedom -of- religion, one must also have the option of freedom
-from- religion, or no freedom exists.

Guy (a life-long agnostic)

That's akin to saying that freedom doesn't exist unless everyone
is free to do whatever they wish. I don't think that I'd like to
live in a country where that was the case, would you?.

Time for the ol' Political Science professor to drop in and point out
some things.

First, the president speaks for the state in a much greater way than
the Queen. The US President is both head of state and head of
government. That being said, however, when a President professes his
own faith and trust in divine providence, he isn't speaking for the
state. And, when an historic presidential statement is made it
reflects more on the sociology of the time than the politics. It
definitely does not speak to Constitutional interpretation.

Then, the oft-quoted conundrum of "freedom-of" versus "freedom from"
is found nowhere in Constitutional law. The religion guarantees in the
First Amendment are in two clauses--separate and not contradictory.

First, the "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion"--that means not only that the Congress shall not establish a
religion, i.e. a governmentally endorsed faith. But goes a step
further in specifiying that the law shall not "respect" a particular
establishment of religion. In other words, no favoritism for one
religion over another. This is a restriction on the government, not
the citizens. And, by virtue of the 14th Amendment's "equal
protection" provisions it applies to the lesser levels of government
in our federal system as well.

Second, the sentence goes on, "...or restricting the free exercise
thereof." That part applies to the citizens. Citizens are free to
practice the rituals of their individual faiths without governmental
interference. (Of course if that practice interferes with the rights
of others, or the 'general welfare" of society, we can constrain the
practice of religion--hence no more virgins in the volcanoes.)

As for the God-fearing attributes of the Framers, they were
politicians of the time and the custom was to express a level of
civility and piety in their public discourse. Many belonged to
Protestant denomination churches, but many were also agnostic or (as
in the case of Thomas Jefferson,) deists--believers in a Supreme Being
without espousal of a particular liturgy. There's little evidence to
link anything in the Constitution to Christianity.

Class dismissed.
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 17:47:24 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
wrote:

Guy Alcala wrote:

WalterM140 wrote:

Separation of church and state, anyone?

The president doesn't speak for the state in the same way that the
Queen of
England does, for instance.

Lincoln quotes snipped

The framers wanted Americans to have freedom -of- religion, not
freedom -from-
religion.

In order to have freedom -of- religion, one must also have the option of
freedom
-from- religion, or no freedom exists.

Guy (a life-long agnostic)

That's akin to saying that freedom doesn't exist unless everyone
is free to do whatever they wish. I don't think that I'd like to
live in a country where that was the case, would you?.

Time for the ol' Political Science professor to drop in and point out
some things.

First, the president speaks for the state in a much greater way than
the Queen. The US President is both head of state and head of
government. That being said, however, when a President professes his
own faith and trust in divine providence, he isn't speaking for the
state. And, when an historic presidential statement is made it
reflects more on the sociology of the time than the politics. It
definitely does not speak to Constitutional interpretation.

Following a Christian philosophy is not evangelization.

Then, the oft-quoted conundrum of "freedom-of" versus "freedom from"
is found nowhere in Constitutional law. The religion guarantees in the
First Amendment are in two clauses--separate and not contradictory.

Wrong, "the free exercise theroef" eliminates any possibility of a "freedom
from" religion. The First Amendment is a powerful thing and I have used the
final delcaration myself, to improve regulation.

First, the "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion"--that means not only that the Congress shall not establish a
religion, i.e. a governmentally endorsed faith. But goes a step
further in specifiying that the law shall not "respect" a particular
establishment of religion. In other words, no favoritism for one
religion over another. This is a restriction on the government, not
the citizens. And, by virtue of the 14th Amendment's "equal
protection" provisions it applies to the lesser levels of government
in our federal system as well.

And thus we can have a Southern Baptist Church on one corner and a Methodist
Curch catty corner to it and have no excessive exchange of gunfire.

None of that implys in any way that there is any right to "freedom from"
religion and a constructionist interpretation would need to conclude that an
insistance on "freedom from " religion is in fact a violation of the First
Amendment.

The Forteenth Amendment, it is intended as an enforcement mechanism for the
Thirteenth Amendment. One need only discover the Fifteenth Aendment and the
95 year delay in enacting enabling law to understand how the wind came out
of the Constitutional change sail once the enforcement of anti-slavery law
moved forward. (1869)

Second, the sentence goes on, "...or restricting the free exercise
thereof." That part applies to the citizens. Citizens are free to
practice the rituals of their individual faiths without governmental
interference. (Of course if that practice interferes with the rights
of others, or the 'general welfare" of society, we can constrain the
practice of religion--hence no more virgins in the volcanoes.)

Perhaps, but the Governement's expression of religion is part of our
buildings and money everywhere. It would seem that the general proclomation
of the Forteenth Amendment is being used to circumvent the "free exercise
thereof" explicitly guaranteed under the First.

As for the God-fearing attributes of the Framers, they were
politicians of the time and the custom was to express a level of
civility and piety in their public discourse. Many belonged to
Protestant denomination churches, but many were also agnostic or (as
in the case of Thomas Jefferson,) deists--believers in a Supreme Being
without espousal of a particular liturgy. There's little evidence to
link anything in the Constitution to Christianity.

Even Ed is peddler of revisionionist PC bull****.

Notice how we began at Guy's desire to be "left alone", as guaranteed by
Fourth Amendment, to Ed's activist PC proclomation about it being OK to
attack Christianity.

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Tarver
Engineering" confessed the following:

Following a Christian philosophy is not evangelization.

And exactly what philosophy is that? I suspect many of the things
(rules of conduct among men/nations) you will claim as christian;
jews, muslims and secular humanists will claim as tenets of their
faith or lack there of.

Wrong, "the free exercise theroef" eliminates any possibility of a "freedom
from" religion.

All hail chief justice John Tarver...supreme arbiter of all things
constitutional.

A pedant could argue it I don't have the right of "freedom from"
religion then you are clearly implying I must observe some religion,
failure to do so would be a violation of your constitutional ruling.

Clearly you are wrong.

Perhaps, but the Governement's expression of religion is part of our
buildings and money everywhere.

Again which religion and which god does my government follow?

Ed posted thusly:
As for the God-fearing attributes of the Framers, they were
politicians of the time and the custom was to express a level of
civility and piety in their public discourse. Many belonged to
Protestant denomination churches, but many were also agnostic or (as
in the case of Thomas Jefferson,) deists--believers in a Supreme Being
without espousal of a particular liturgy. There's little evidence to
link anything in the Constitution to Christianity.

And JT concludes...

Even Ed is peddler of revisionionist PC bull****.

Hmmm, my political science degree is 25 years old, and Ed's remarks
jibe with the books I read and the lectures I heard. So when exactly
did this "revisionism" start?

Notice how we began at Guy's desire to be "left alone", as guaranteed by
Fourth Amendment, to Ed's activist PC proclomation about it being OK to
attack Christianity.

Whoa...I, like Guy would ask you to keep your religious myths to
yourself. Believe what you want, but don't expect any special
treatment because you think christianity is superior to what jews,
muslims, buddhists, hindus, or pagans follow.

Oh yeah, one more thing. When you die...POOF...you're gone, time's up,
no "do overs."

Juvat

"Robey Price" wrote in message
...
After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Tarver
Engineering" confessed the following:

Following a Christian philosophy is not evangelization.

And exactly what philosophy is that? I suspect many of the things
(rules of conduct among men/nations) you will claim as christian;
jews, muslims and secular humanists will claim as tenets of their
faith or lack there of.

Logos, Pathos and Ethos are a part of the religions I know of.

Wrong, "the free exercise theroef" eliminates any possibility of a
"freedom
from" religion.

All hail chief justice John Tarver...supreme arbiter of all things
constitutional.

An explicit right can not be cancelled through some vague generalized law.

A pedant could argue it I don't have the right of "freedom from"
religion then you are clearly implying I must observe some religion,
failure to do so would be a violation of your constitutional ruling.

Failure to observe any religion leads directly to human psycosis and is
detrimental to society as a whole.

Clearly you are wrong.

Clearly, human nature says I am correct.

Perhaps, but the Governement's expression of religion is part of our
buildings and money everywhere.

Again which religion and which god does my government follow?

The government does not follow any religion.

Ed posted thusly:
As for the God-fearing attributes of the Framers, they were
politicians of the time and the custom was to express a level of
civility and piety in their public discourse. Many belonged to
Protestant denomination churches, but many were also agnostic or (as
in the case of Thomas Jefferson,) deists--believers in a Supreme Being
without espousal of a particular liturgy. There's little evidence to
link anything in the Constitution to Christianity.

And JT concludes...

Even Ed is peddler of revisionionist PC bull****.

Hmmm, my political science degree is 25 years old, and Ed's remarks
jibe with the books I read and the lectures I heard. So when exactly
did this "revisionism" start?

The removal of religion from the public square began in the 1970s.

Notice how we began at Guy's desire to be "left alone", as guaranteed by
Fourth Amendment, to Ed's activist PC proclomation about it being OK to
attack Christianity.

Whoa...I, like Guy would ask you to keep your religious myths to
yourself. Believe what you want, but don't expect any special
treatment because you think christianity is superior to what jews,
muslims, buddhists, hindus, or pagans follow.

As you might learn someday, it is all the same thing.

To call Luciffer by a differnet name does not change the messenger. (angel)
What we can learn is the difference in society where a different cure for
human psycosis is offered. In a society where the Hindi concept of
reincarnation is widely held, Shiva is renewal as opposed to destruction and
death, but still the same character.

Oh yeah, one more thing. When you die...POOF...you're gone, time's up,
no "do overs."

That is a Christian concept, but not a universal religious concept.

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Tarver
Engineering" confessed the following:

Failure to observe any religion leads directly to human psycosis and is
detrimental to society as a whole.

Well...guys like Feynman, Sagan, Einstein, et al would smile and
suggest that religion might actually be a contributor to that
psycosis.

The removal of religion from the public square began in the 1970s.

Quoi? Please enlighten me...what are you trying to say? Specifics. Not
that I would view such events as bad things, I'd be inclined to chant
"faster and funnier" if that would speed the process you're lamenting.

[note to lurker: faster and funnier is often heard in squadrons when
a briefer is boring the audience and delaying the participation in
Happy Hour].

As you might learn someday, it is all the same thing.

Well they all have equal validity IMO.

To call Luciffer by a differnet name does not change the messenger. (angel)
What we can learn is the difference in society where a different cure for
human psycosis is offered. In a society where the Hindi concept of
reincarnation is widely held, Shiva is renewal as opposed to destruction and
death, but still the same character.

Uhhh, mmmm okay. I guess you're saying that one mythical character
appears in various incarnations as part of diverse religious myths. I
can buy that.

That is a Christian concept, but not a universal religious concept.

Actually I'm paraphrasing the secular humanist view, we'd never call
ourselves christians.

Juvat

"Robey Price" wrote in message
...
After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Tarver
Engineering" confessed the following:

Failure to observe any religion leads directly to human psycosis and is
detrimental to society as a whole.

Well...guys like Feynman, Sagan, Einstein, et al would smile and
suggest that religion might actually be a contributor to that
psycosis.

Einstein's black box radiation work led directly to the discreditation of
evolution which continues today through DNA. The evolutionist was
confronted with "Jew science" by 1930 demonstrating a vacuum fluctuation
quite nicely. Attempting to use 20th century science to validate 19th
century "dog breeder science" can only demonstrate a paradox when taken to
it's conclusion.

Perhaps this is more along the lines of your line of :
It [charity] encourages the healthier and more normal sections of the world
to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others;
which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of
human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that
are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to
render them to a menacing degree dominant [emphasis added].11
Margaret Sanger
--

"To give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of
segregation [concentration camps] or sterilization", advocated the founder
of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger in April 1932 ("A Plan For Peace")

The removal of religion from the public square began in the 1970s.

Quoi? Please enlighten me...what are you trying to say? Specifics. Not
that I would view such events as bad things, I'd be inclined to chant
"faster and funnier" if that would speed the process you're lamenting.

Archatecture and art that would be completely acceptable in the public
square in the 1960s is not acceptable in the public square today.

[note to lurker: faster and funnier is often heard in squadrons when
a briefer is boring the audience and delaying the participation in
Happy Hour].

Is that the 2 for 1 happy hour, or the regualar kind?

As you might learn someday, it is all the same thing.

Well they all have equal validity IMO.

All who call upon the name of God will be saved.

To call Luciffer by a differnet name does not change the messenger.
(angel)
What we can learn is the difference in society where a different cure for
human psycosis is offered. In a society where the Hindi concept of
reincarnation is widely held, Shiva is renewal as opposed to destruction
and
death, but still the same character.

Uhhh, mmmm okay. I guess you're saying that one mythical character
appears in various incarnations as part of diverse religious myths. I
can buy that.

I find that fascinating bit quite useful in understanding a society.

That is a Christian concept, but not a universal religious concept.

Actually I'm paraphrasing the secular humanist view, we'd never call
ourselves christians.

Is it OK for Phil Miller to marry his pony?

Or is it a moral question.