alt.education

Jd wrote:
>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>
>>Jd wrote:
>>>Irrelevant based on "separation of powers". All 50 states recognize God in official documents.
>>>
>>>Alabama 1901, Preamble. We the people of the State of Alabama, invoking the favor and guidance of
>>>Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution ..
>>
>>Alabama's constitution also forbids interracial marriage and requires
>>segregated schools. State constitutional provisions that violate the
>>Federal Constitution are moot, and have no significance.
>
>Irrelevant. I've documented all my points to the max

But your documentation is irrelevant, since any mention of religion in
any state law is unconstitutional and therefore meaningless.

>and you've have not wrt any of yours. In a
>court of law I would win and you would be laughed at.

Everyone is laughing at YOU idiot.

>Like bilbo, you're bluffing and only rely on hearsay, gossip, rumours and wishful thinking.

You forget "law" and "history".

>In summary, I would make a better activist judge who relies on precedence than would you.

There is no precedent supporting your claims.

>Therefore you should fear and tremble. I have proven that if the pendulum ever starts swinging in
>the other direction, you, biboa and the rest of the marxist leftists around the nation will be in
>deep trouble.

Actually, the pendulum has started swinging aware from the religious
reich. Even some of its rabid supporters have changed sides, deciding
that you and your ilk are a bunch of extremists and nutcakes who have
little to do with what Jesus Christ taught.

http://www.alternet.org/story/78818/

Frank Schaeffer:
<"What I slowly realized was that the religious-right leaders we were helping to gain power were not
<'conservatives' at all, in the old sense of the word. They were anti-American religious revolutionaries."

Whitehead:
< Right for making Christianity synonymous with "partisan politics,
< anti-homosexual rhetoric, affluent megachurches, and moralistic
< finger-pointing."
<
< 1982, that the Supreme Court "rejected Judeo-Christian theism as the
< religion and foundation of the United States" when it struck down
< religious qualifications for public office at the state level in
< 1961.

The latter is sufficient rebuttal for your assertions about the
foundation of the United States, from the mouth of what was then one
of your fearless leaders of the right.

Schaeffer again:
<"My basic beef with the Reconstructionists is that they could never
< end a sentence with 'I don't know' or 'I'm not sure.' They always
< ended with 'This is how it is.' That level of hubris runs counter to
< Christianity," Schaeffer remarked.
<
<"To me, faith and doubt are interchangeable," he added. "You live with
< that. When you reject pluralism and embrace the philosophy of the
< Reconstructionists, you've said, 'Freedom scares me. I have to be
< right, and even though logically my life is too short to say I know
< anything, I'll say I do. When I don't have an answer for someone,
< I'll shout them down.'

You exhibit the same hubris, and do so in the face of real evidence,
that he describes, only you add bald-faced lies to the mix.

>One more thing. Here are the first 2 paragraphs of the 1297 Magna Carta. Your mission is to explain
>your lies concerning just exactly how English "common law" (which was derived from the Magna Carta)
>is "secular".....

You have it backwards. The Magna Carta derived from common law, and
was a first attempt to encode parts of that common law as statutory
law. The Magna Carta, as amended, is still part of the statutes of
the UK
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=1517519


>"Edward by the grace of God King of England, lord of Ireland and duke of Aquitaine sends greetings
>to all to whom the present letters come. We have inspected the great charter of the lord Henry, late
>King of England, our father, concerning the liberties of England in these words:
>Henry by the grace of God King of England, lord of Ireland, duke of Normandy and Aquitaine and count
>of Anjou sends greetings to his archbishops, bishops, abbots, priors, earls, barons, sheriffs,
>reeves, ministers and all his bailiffs and faithful men inspecting the present charter. Know that
>we, at the prompting of God and for the health of our soul and the souls of our ancestors and
>successors, for the glory of holy Church and the improvement of our realm, freely and out of our
>good will have given and granted to the archbishops, bishops, abbots, priors, earls, barons and all
>of our realm these liberties written below to hold in our realm of England in perpetuity."
>
>"[1] In the first place we grant to God and confirm by this our present charter for ourselves and
>our heirs in perpetuity that the English Church is to be free and to have all its rights fully and
>its liberties entirely. We furthermore grant and give to all the freemen of our realm for ourselves
>and our heirs in perpetuity the liberties written below to have and to hold to them and their heirs
>from us and our heirs in perpetuity." (Original 1297 Magna Carta)

The Magna Carta was signed in 1215. That is NOT the original. That
is in fact (as it says) Edward's preamble to the 1297 reconfirmation
of the Magna Carta. The text you quote doesn't go beyond Edward's
comments to the actual charter itself.

That the king was considered ordained by God isn't really in
contention. The point of the Magna Carta was to CONFIRM liberties
that Englishmen already believed that they had. The king didn't in
fact have any choice but to confirm the charter - there were plenty of
nobles with swords to make sure that he got the point if he objected.
Attributing what he was forced to do by pragmatic politics as being
the will of God does not in fact make it the will of God.

>http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/magna_carta/translation.html

lojbab