alt.education

On Mar 19, 1:07 pm, buckeye wrote:
> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> >:|Jeff Strickland wrote:
> >:|
> >:|>
> >:|> wrote in message
> >:|>news:90bqt3psj288dehm1q156sqrsjt81kgimf@4ax.com...
> >:|>
> >:|>> On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 12:55:22 +0000, ZerkonX
> >:|>> wrote:
> >:|>>
> >:|>>> The proposition here is:
> >:|>>>
> >:|>>> By not allowing prayer in schools but by allowing prayer to be hear=
d
> >:|>>> inside government chambers, a crime has been committed.
> >:|>>
> >:|>>
> >:|>> Schools are venues of learning and if government
> >:|>> sanctions "prayer"--it is advocacy or promotion of
> >:|>> religion
> >:|>>
> >:|>
> >:|> Doesn't the same advocacy or promotion exist when government prays in=

> >:|> the halls of Congress and/or the highest court in the land?
> >:|
> >:|I think so, and the Court in upholding the prayers didn't conclude
> >:|otherwise. Instead they chose to ignore that criterion, sending us on
> >:|the road to the confusing and conflicting Establishment Clause
> >:|jurisprudence we are currently saddled with.
>
> The court was honoring politics instead of law:
>
> Revisiting Marsh v. Chambershttp://members.tripod.com/~candst/marshchm.htm=

>
> ***************************************************************
> You are invited to check out the following:
>
> The Rise of the Theocratic States of Americahttp://members.tripod.com/~can=
dst/theocracy.htm
>
> American Theocrats - Past and Presenthttp://members.tripod.com/~candst/the=
ocrats.htm
>
> The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and Statehttp://members=
.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
>
> [and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
> Church and State in general, listed below]
>
> HRSepCnS =B7 Historical Reality SepChurch&Statehttp://groups.yahoo.com/gro=
up/HRSepCnS/
>
> ***************************************************************
> . . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
> respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
> take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "=
a
> page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner=
,
> 256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
> Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
> . . .
> ****************************************************************
> USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
>
> "You pilot always into an unknown future;
> facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
>
> That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
> many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
>
> It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
> plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
> almost every media turn.
>
> *****************************************************************
> THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
> SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
>
> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
> ****************************************************************- Hide quo=
ted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The First Amendment forbids the Federal government from
establishing a State run religion. The founding fathers were
well aware of the state run Anglican church, or the Church
of England founded by King Henry VIII and wanted no
part of a government religion that many of them or their
forefathers fled. Most of the forefathers were Christians
and took Jesus' words to heart: "Give to Caesar what is
Caesar's, and give to God what is God's." This is the
basis for the separation part of the First Amendment.

" Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances. "

The other part, often overlooked by the "Wall of Separation"
enthusiasts, states clearly that no law will be made that
prohibits the free exercise [of religion].

You anti-religious types should back off and allow the
American people to celebrate their belief systems in
peace and freedom. Atheism is fine if that's what you
want to believe in. Just don't try and lay it off on other
people who see the world differently.