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

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.

Robey Price wrote:

snip

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

Or, as the televangelists would have it, "Sekoolar Hoomanist," with roughly the
same intonation they use when saying "Spawn of Satan" ;-)

Guy

Ed Rasimus wrote:

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.

And very little has changed in that regard today, when even the most secular pols feel
a need to make a fetish of religious belief and piety (prayer breakfasts, well-covered
church attendance, etc.), at least when they're up for (re)election or involved in
some scandal.


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.

Speaking of TJ, here's the text of his "Virginia Statute For Religious Freedom," which
he got adopted into that state's constitution (actually, Jefferson wrote it but
Madison handled the political maneuvering):

"Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all
attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil
incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness,
and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion,
who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by
coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do; that the
impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as
ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men
have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own
opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as
such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and
maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and
through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money
for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and
tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his
own religious persuasion is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of
giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would
make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to
righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporal
rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal
conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labors
for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence
on our religious opinions, more than our opinions in physics or
geometry; that, therefore, the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the
public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to
offices of trust and emolument unless he profess or renounce this or that
religious opinion is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and
advantages to which in common with his fellow citizens he has a natural
right.; that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is
meant to encourage, by bribing, with emoluments, those who will
externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are
criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those
innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate
to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the
profession and propagation of principles, on the supposition of their ill
tendency is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious
liberty , because he being of course judge of that tendency, will make his
opinions the rule of judgement, and approve or condemn the sentiments
of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is
time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers
to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and
good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to
herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has
nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition
disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors
ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.

"Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be
compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or
ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or
burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of
his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess,
and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and
that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil
capacities.

"And though we all know this Assembly, elected by the people for the
ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts
of succeeding Assemblies, constituted with the powers equal to our
own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no
effect in law, yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights
hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act
shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation,
such act will be an infringement of natural right."

The bill was introduced in 1779, and becamepart of Virginia's consitution on January
16, 1786, i.e. three years before the Constitution went into effect. The 1st
Amendment was based on the view expressed in it. Jefferson considered it one of his
three greatest accomplishments, and made sure his epitaph read:

"Here was buried Thomas Jefferson, Author of the Declaration of American Independence,
of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom, And Father of the University of
Virginia."

Guy

Guy Alcala wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:

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.

And very little has changed in that regard today, when even the most secular pols feel
a need to make a fetish of religious belief and piety (prayer breakfasts, well-covered
church attendance, etc.), at least when they're up for (re)election or involved in
some scandal.

I think it's interesting that any politician publicly embracing
religion seems always portrayed as either partaking in demagoguery
or attempting to create a state religion.

Seems secularists want religion strictly confined within the walls
of church, temple, mosque, whatever, not be seen in public on pain
of "promoting religion".

Allowing nativity scenes on public commons is NOT "promoting
religion", and is actually suppressing it! The founding fathers
were keenly aware of all the problems that resulted from government
promoting religion. On the other hand, they were deeply religious
and were not prone to create an agnostic or atheist US either.

Bush has every right as an individual to make the religious based
statements he has. He apparently is sort of "born again" and his
words more than likely aren't pandering to a religious audience.

Until he starts giving a particular religious group tax breaks or
government funding, I'm not too concerned that the important
Constitutional principle of church/state separation is being
violated.


SMH