I found that posting on Usenet, and it is really interesting. It
basically says that all U.S. states believe that there is a God. As a
Scientologist, I say, thetan basically knows.

Barbara Schwarz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separation of God and state?
Posted: October 11, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By William J. Federer

America's founders did not intend for there to be a separation of God
and state, as shown by the fact that all 50 states acknowledged God in
their state constitutions:

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 ...

Alaska 1956, Preamble. We, the people of Alaska, grateful to God and
to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land ...

Arizona 1911, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arizona,
grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this
Constitution ...

Arkansas 1874, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arkansas,
grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of
government ...

California 1879, Preamble. We, the People of the State of California,
grateful to Almighty God for our freedom ...

Colorado 1876, Preamble. We, the people of Colorado, with profound
reverence for the Supreme Ruler of Universe ...

Connecticut 1818, Preamble. The People of Connecticut, acknowledging
with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy
....

Delaware 1897, Preamble. Through Divine Goodness all men have, by
nature, the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according
to the dictates of their consciences ...

Florida 1885, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Florida,
grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty ... establish
this Constitution ...

Georgia 1777, Preamble. We, the people of Georgia, relying upon
protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this
Constitution ...

Hawaii 1959, Preamble. We, the people of Hawaii, Grateful for Divine
Guidance ... establish this Constitution ...

Idaho 1889, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Idaho, grateful
to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings ...

Illinois 1870, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Illinois,
grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious
liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him
for a blessing on our endeavors ...

Indiana 1851, Preamble. We, the People of the State of Indiana,
grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to chose
our form of government ...

Iowa 1857, Preamble. We, the People of the State of Iowa, grateful to
the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our
dependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings ... establish
this Constitution ...

Kansas 1859, Preamble. We, the people of Kansas, grateful to Almighty
God for our civil and religious privileges ... establish this
Constitution ...

Kentucky 1891, Preamble. We, the people of the Commonwealth of
Kentucky, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and
religious liberties ...

Louisiana 1921, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Louisiana,
grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious
liberties we enjoy ...

Maine 1820, Preamble. We the People of Maine ... acknowledging with
grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in
affording us an opportunity ... and imploring His aid and direction
....

Maryland 1776, Preamble. We, the people of the state of Maryland,
grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty ...

Massachusetts 1780, Preamble. We...the people of Massachusetts,
acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great
Legislator of the Universe... in the course of His Providence, an
opportunity ... and devoutly imploring His direction ...

Michigan 1908, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Michigan,
grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom ... establish
this Constitution ...

Minnesota, 1857, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Minnesota,
grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to
perpetuate its blessings ...

Mississippi 1890, Preamble. We, the people of Mississippi in
convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking His
blessing on our work ...

Missouri 1945, Preamble. We, the people of Missouri, with profound
reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His
goodness ... establish this Constitution ...

Montana 1889, Preamble. We, the people of Montana, grateful to
Almighty God for the blessings of liberty ... establish this
Constitution ...

Nebraska 1875, Preamble. We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for
our freedom ... establish this Constitution ...

Nevada 1864, Preamble. We the people of the State of Nevada, grateful
to Almighty God for our freedom ... establish this Constitution ...

New Hampshire 1792, Part I. Art. I. Sec. V. Every individual has a
natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates
of his own conscience ...

New Jersey 1844, Preamble. We, the people of the State of New Jersey,
grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath
so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on
our endeavors …

New Mexico 1911, Preamble. We, the People of New Mexico, grateful to
Almighty God for the blessings of liberty ...

New York 1846, Preamble. We, the people of the State of New York,
grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its
blessings ...

North Carolina 1868, Preamble. We the people of the State of North
Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations,
for ... our civil, political, and religious liberties, and
acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those ...

North Dakota 1889, Preamble. We, the people of North Dakota, grateful
to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do
ordain...

Ohio 1852, Preamble. We the people of the state of Ohio, grateful to
Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to promote
our common ...

Oklahoma 1907, Preamble. Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in
order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty ... establish
this ...

Oregon 1857, Bill of Rights, Article I. Section 2. All men shall be
secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the
dictates of their consciences ...

Pennsylvania 1776, Preamble. We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful
to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and
humbly invoking His guidance ...

Rhode Island 1842, Preamble. We the People of the State of Rhode
Island ... grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious
liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to
Him for a blessing ...

South Carolina, 1778, Preamble. We, the people of the State of South
Carolina ... grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and
establish this Constitution ...

South Dakota 1889, Preamble. We, the people of South Dakota, grateful
to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties ... establish
this Constitution ...

Tennessee 1796, Art. XI.III. That all men have a natural and
indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates
of their conscience ...

Texas 1845, Preamble. We the People of the Republic of Texas,
acknowledging, with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God ...

Utah 1896, Preamble. Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we
.... establish this Constitution ...

Vermont 1777, Preamble. Whereas all government ought to ... enable the
individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and other
blessings which the Author of Existence has bestowed on man ...

Virginia 1776, Bill of Rights, XVI ... Religion, or the Duty which we
owe our Creator ... can be directed only by Reason ... and that it is
the mutual duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and
Charity towards each other ...

Washington 1889, Preamble. We the People of the State of Washington,
grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do
ordain this Constitution ...

West Virginia 1872, Preamble. Since through Divine Providence we enjoy
the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the
people of West Virginia ... reaffirm our faith in and constant
reliance upon God ...

Wisconsin 1848, Preamble. We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to
Almighty God for our freedom, domestic tranquility ...

Wyoming 1890, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Wyoming,
grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties ...
establish this Constitution ...

After reviewing acknowledgments of God from all 50 state
constitutions, one is faced with the prospect that maybe, just maybe,
the ACLU and the out-of-control federal courts are wrong.

"Guess who?" <theonewhoshallnotspeakout@emailaccount.com> wrote in message
America's founders did not intend for there to be a separation of God and state, as shown by the fact that all 50 states acknowledged God in their state constitutions:

There's a seperation of 'church' and state. If we assume there is something
supernatural, and further assume there's only one (rather than 10,
1,000,007, a centillion, etc.) then we still can only conjecture about the
nature of this supernatural being. Some churches have members or leaders who
are deluded into thinking they precisely know the will of this alleged being
(or they pretend they know). Clearly, the state should be seperate from such
folks who pass off their own conjectures as fact. Not completely though,
deluded or not, members of churches should have the same right to vote as
anyone else, and in the US's case they do.

If there's a god (and only one) and she's omnipotent, then her will is
always done, regardless of what anyone else wants, so why worry about it?

Karl Johanson

On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 19:04:51 GMT, "Karl Johanson"
<karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote:
America's founders did not intend for there to be a separation of God and state, as shown by the fact that all 50 states acknowledged God in their state constitutions:
There's a seperation of 'church' and state.

Point out where that is stated in the Constitution - give us an
explicit passage.
should be seperate

Please learn how to spell - the word is "separate".
If there's a god (and only one) and she's omnipotent, then her will isalways done, regardless of what anyone else wants

That's the (false) doctrine of predestination.

Learn some metaphysics before you venture into waters like that.

--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

Government's view of the economy can be summed up in a few short phrases:
* If it moves, tax it.
* If it keeps moving, regulate it.
* If it stops moving, subsidize it.
--Ronald Reagan

On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 20:02:24 GMT, spam@spam.com (Bob) in misc.legal,
wrote the following:
There's a seperation of 'church' and state.Point out where that is stated in the Constitution - give us anexplicit passage.

Amendment One:

"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."

Commentary:

"Madison's original proposal for a bill of rights provision concerning
religion read: 'The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of
religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be
established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any
manner, or on any pretence, infringed.' The language was altered in the
House to read: 'Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to
prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of
conscience.' In the Senate, the section adopted read: 'Congress shall
make no law establishing articles of faith, or a mode of worship, or
prohibiting the free exercise of religion, . . .' It was in the
conference committee of the two bodies, chaired by Madison, that the
present language was written with its some what more indefinite
'respecting' phraseology."

<...>

"In 1802, President Jefferson wrote a letter to a group of Baptists in
Danbury, Connecticut, in which he declared that it was the purpose of
the First Amendment to build 'a wall of separation between Church and
State.' In Reynolds v. United States [98 U.S. 145, 164 (1879)], Chief
Justice Waite for the Court characterized the phrase as 'almost an
authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment.' In
its first encounters with religion-based challenges to state programs,
the Court looked to Jefferson's metaphor for substantial guidance. But
a metaphor may obscure as well as illuminate, and the Court soon began
to emphasize neutrality and voluntarism as the standard of restraint on
governmental action. The concept of neutrality itself is 'a coat of many
colors,' and three standards that could be stated in objective fashion
emerged as tests of Establishment Clause validity. The first two
standards were part of the same formulation. 'The test may be stated as
follows: what are the purpose and the primary effect of the enactment?
If either is the advancement or inhibition of religion then the
enactment exceeds the scope of legislative power as circumscribed by the
Constitution. That is to say that to withstand the strictures of the
Establishment Clause there must be a secular legislative purpose and a
primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion.' The third
test is whether the governmental program results in 'an excessive
government entanglement with religion. The test is inescapably one of
degree . . . [T]he questions are whether the involvement is excessive,
and whether it is a continuing one calling for official and continuing
surveillance leading to an impermissible degree of entanglement.' In
1971 these three tests were combined and restated in Chief Justice
Burger's opinion for the Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman [403 U.S. 602, 612
-13 (1971)], and are frequently referred to by reference to that case
name."

Source: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/


--
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, J.D.

"Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is
left free to combat it."

(Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, 1801)

DISCLAIMER:

Not a practicing attorney, and no attorney-client relationship
is created. This response is for discussion purposes only. It
isn't meant to be legal advice. If you wish legal advice, seek
out an attorney in your own state who is familar with your
state's laws and applications thereof.

On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 21:23:16 +0100, Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
<egylist@deadspamgriffis-consulting.com> wrote:
There's a seperation of 'church' and state.
Point out where that is stated in the Constitution - give us anexplicit passage.
Amendment One:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, orprohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom ofspeech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably toassemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I do not see any separation clause there - not in the contemporary
meaning of "separation of church and state".

For example, I do not see where the clause abovr says it is
unconstitutional for the Pledge of Allegience to have a statement
"under God" in it.

I do not see where the clause you cited says that Judge Roy Moore has
to remove the Ten Commandments monument from the front of the Alabama
Supreme Court building.

I do not see where the clause you cited states that Christians must
remove their Christmas decorations from public view (but Jews get to
keep their religious iconography in public view).

If anything, the three things I just mentioned are examples of the
state infringing on the free exercise of religion, which IS prohibited
by the clause you cited above.





--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

Government's view of the economy can be summed up in a few short phrases:
* If it moves, tax it.
* If it keeps moving, regulate it.
* If it stops moving, subsidize it.
--Ronald Reagan

"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:40c0da7f.30159507@news-server.houston.rr.com... On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 21:23:16 +0100, Katherine Griffis-Greenberg <egylist@deadspamgriffis-consulting.com> wrote:>There's a seperation of 'church' and state.Point out where that is stated in the Constitution - give us anexplicit passage.Amendment One:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, orprohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom ofspeech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably toassemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." I do not see any separation clause there - not in the contemporary meaning of "separation of church and state". For example, I do not see where the clause abovr says it is unconstitutional for the Pledge of Allegience to have a statement "under God" in it.
Even if it doesn't the phrase should be removed since the original author
did not put it in there. It was a product of the Red Scare of the '50s.

tim gueguen 101867

"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:40c0da7f.30159507@news-server.houston.rr.com... On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 21:23:16 +0100, Katherine Griffis-Greenberg <egylist@deadspamgriffis-consulting.com> wrote:>There's a seperation of 'church' and state.Point out where that is stated in the Constitution - give us anexplicit passage.Amendment One:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, orprohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom ofspeech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably toassemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." I do not see any separation clause there - not in the contemporary meaning of "separation of church and state". For example, I do not see where the clause abovr says it is unconstitutional for the Pledge of Allegience to have a statement "under God" in it. I do not see where the clause you cited says that Judge Roy Moore has to remove the Ten Commandments monument from the front of the Alabama Supreme Court building. I do not see where the clause you cited states that Christians must remove their Christmas decorations from public view (but Jews get to keep their religious iconography in public view).

If you are saying this has occurred, I don't believe you. If anything, the three things I just mentioned are examples of the state infringing on the free exercise of religion, which IS prohibited by the clause you cited above.

You have a reading problem and are probably a little light-headed.
"Separation of church and state" is a term paraphrasing the Establishment
Clause of the First Amendment. Courts, as they were constituted to do,
interpret the amendments and issue orders accordingly. That's so that
people like you who may have infested some government agency are discouraged
and often prevented from interpreting the First Amendment and the other
amendments.

Guess who? wrote: I found that posting on Usenet, and it is really interesting. It basically says that all U.S. states believe that there is a God. As a Scientologist, I say, thetan basically knows.

That would be 'know' in the 'pulled it out of my *** scientologist
unpleasant nutcase' sense of the word.

"Guess who?" <theonewhoshallnotspeakout@emailaccount.com> wrote in message
news:7a350238.0406041016.4867c8ae@posting.google.c om... I found that posting on Usenet, and it is really interesting. It basically says that all U.S. states believe that there is a God. As a Scientologist, I say, thetan basically knows. Barbara Schwarz --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------ Separation of God and state? Posted: October 11, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern By William J. Federer America's founders did not intend for there to be a separation of God and state, as shown by the fact that all 50 states acknowledged God in their state constitutions: 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 ... Alaska 1956, Preamble. We, the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land ... Arizona 1911, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution ... Arkansas 1874, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arkansas, grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government ... California 1879, Preamble. We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom ... Colorado 1876, Preamble. We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of Universe ... Connecticut 1818, Preamble. The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy ... Delaware 1897, Preamble. Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences ... Florida 1885, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Florida, grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty ... establish this Constitution ... Georgia 1777, Preamble. We, the people of Georgia, relying upon protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution ... Hawaii 1959, Preamble. We, the people of Hawaii, Grateful for Divine Guidance ... establish this Constitution ... Idaho 1889, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Idaho, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings ... Illinois 1870, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors ... Indiana 1851, Preamble. We, the People of the State of Indiana, grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to chose our form of government ... Iowa 1857, Preamble. We, the People of the State of Iowa, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings ... establish this Constitution ... Kansas 1859, Preamble. We, the people of Kansas, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges ... establish this Constitution ... Kentucky 1891, Preamble. We, the people of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties ... Louisiana 1921, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Louisiana, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy ... Maine 1820, Preamble. We the People of Maine ... acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity ... and imploring His aid and direction ... Maryland 1776, Preamble. We, the people of the state of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty ... Massachusetts 1780, Preamble. We...the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe... in the course of His Providence, an opportunity ... and devoutly imploring His direction ... Michigan 1908, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom ... establish this Constitution ... Minnesota, 1857, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings ... Mississippi 1890, Preamble. We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work ... Missouri 1945, Preamble. We, the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness ... establish this Constitution ... Montana 1889, Preamble. We, the people of Montana, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty ... establish this Constitution ... Nebraska 1875, Preamble. We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom ... establish this Constitution ... Nevada 1864, Preamble. We the people of the State of Nevada, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom ... establish this Constitution ... New Hampshire 1792, Part I. Art. I. Sec. V. Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience ... New Jersey 1844, Preamble. We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors . New Mexico 1911, Preamble. We, the People of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty ... New York 1846, Preamble. We, the people of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings ... North Carolina 1868, Preamble. We the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for ... our civil, political, and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those ... North Dakota 1889, Preamble. We, the people of North Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain... Ohio 1852, Preamble. We the people of the state of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to promote our common ... Oklahoma 1907, Preamble. Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty ... establish this ... Oregon 1857, Bill of Rights, Article I. Section 2. All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences ... Pennsylvania 1776, Preamble. We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance ... Rhode Island 1842, Preamble. We the People of the State of Rhode Island ... grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing ... South Carolina, 1778, Preamble. We, the people of the State of South Carolina ... grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution ... South Dakota 1889, Preamble. We, the people of South Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties ... establish this Constitution ... Tennessee 1796, Art. XI.III. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience ... Texas 1845, Preamble. We the People of the Republic of Texas, acknowledging, with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God ... Utah 1896, Preamble. Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we ... establish this Constitution ... Vermont 1777, Preamble. Whereas all government ought to ... enable the individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and other blessings which the Author of Existence has bestowed on man ... Virginia 1776, Bill of Rights, XVI ... Religion, or the Duty which we owe our Creator ... can be directed only by Reason ... and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards each other ... Washington 1889, Preamble. We the People of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution ... West Virginia 1872, Preamble. Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West Virginia ... reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God ... Wisconsin 1848, Preamble. We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, domestic tranquility ... Wyoming 1890, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Wyoming, grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties ... establish this Constitution ... After reviewing acknowledgments of God from all 50 state constitutions, one is faced with the prospect that maybe, just maybe, the ACLU and the out-of-control federal courts are wrong.

Or, (more reality based than your delusion) , the states are breaking the
law ( The Constitution) - and the zealots - who STILL have no valid evidence
to support "god" may have a lot of political power - but THEY" are still
wrong!

Who says the federal courts are "out of control"? Only the zealous fanatics
who cannot get their religious agenda push into law whenever they want!

"Guess who?" <theonewhoshallnotspeakout@emailaccount.com> wrote in message America's founders did not intend for there to be a separation of God and state, as shown by the fact that all 50 states acknowledged God in their state constitutions:

Obviously the founders DID intend a separation - because that is the gist of
what they wrote in the Constitution.

Obviously, in SPITE of the Constitution, religious zealots have enough
political power to force the ILLEGAL issue on states!

"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:40c0d4a1.28656956@news-server.houston.rr.com... On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 19:04:51 GMT, "Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote: America's founders did not intend for there to be a separation of God and state, as shown by the fact that all 50 states acknowledged God in their state constitutions:There's a seperation of 'church' and state. Point out where that is stated in the Constitution - give us an explicit passage.

Get your head out of your ***!
Those "specific" words are not necessary or need to describe the intent!

Only a brain dead moron uses the excuse that those "exact" words aren't
there!

"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:40c0da7f.30159507@news-server.houston.rr.com... On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 21:23:16 +0100, Katherine Griffis-Greenberg <egylist@deadspamgriffis-consulting.com> wrote:>There's a seperation of 'church' and state.Point out where that is stated in the Constitution - give us anexplicit passage.Amendment One:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, orprohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom ofspeech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably toassemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." I do not see any separation clause there - not in the contemporary meaning of "separation of church and state". For example, I do not see where the clause abovr says it is unconstitutional for the Pledge of Allegience to have a statement "under God" in it. I do not see where the clause you cited says that Judge Roy Moore has to remove the Ten Commandments monument from the front of the Alabama Supreme Court building. I do not see where the clause you cited states that Christians must remove their Christmas decorations from public view (but Jews get to keep their religious iconography in public view). If anything, the three things I just mentioned are examples of the state infringing on the free exercise of religion, which IS prohibited by the clause you cited above.


Perhaps if you had an I.Q. greater than ten - and got your head out of your
*** - you would KNOW that the exactly words are NOT necessary to convey the
concluded meaning!

BTW ......as an example you MAY be able to follow.

Murder is a crime.
They do NOT need to say .... murder by knife, murder by gun, murder by
starvation, murder by vehicle, murder by rope ...etc..

" jls" <jls1016ns@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:SC5wc.9489$Iu6.8009@bignews5.bellsouth.net... "Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message news:40c0da7f.30159507@news-server.houston.rr.com... On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 21:23:16 +0100, Katherine Griffis-Greenberg <egylist@deadspamgriffis-consulting.com> wrote:>>There's a seperation of 'church' and state.>Point out where that is stated in the Constitution - give us an>explicit passage.Amendment One:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, orprohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom ofspeech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably toassemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." I do not see any separation clause there - not in the contemporary meaning of "separation of church and state". For example, I do not see where the clause abovr says it is unconstitutional for the Pledge of Allegience to have a statement "under God" in it. I do not see where the clause you cited says that Judge Roy Moore has to remove the Ten Commandments monument from the front of the Alabama Supreme Court building. I do not see where the clause you cited states that Christians must remove their Christmas decorations from public view (but Jews get to keep their religious iconography in public view). If you are saying this has occurred, I don't believe you. If anything, the three things I just mentioned are examples of the state infringing on the free exercise of religion, which IS prohibited by the clause you cited above. You have a reading problem and are probably a little light-headed. "Separation of church and state" is a term paraphrasing the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Courts, as they were constituted to do, interpret the amendments and issue orders accordingly. That's so that people like you who may have infested some government agency are
discouraged and often prevented from interpreting the First Amendment and the other amendments.


It doesn't matter what reality, or education, you shove at bob - he has
elected to remain simpleminded and ignorant.

On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 17:10:47 -0400, " jls" <jls1016ns@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
I do not see where the clause you cited states that Christians must remove their Christmas decorations from public view (but Jews get to keep their religious iconography in public view).
If you are saying this has occurred, I don't believe you.

Then get a clue. Try Palm Beach, FL
If anything, the three things I just mentioned are examples of the state infringing on the free exercise of religion, which IS prohibited by the clause you cited above.
You have a reading problem and are probably a little light-headed.

Troll.

--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

Government's view of the economy can be summed up in a few short phrases:
* If it moves, tax it.
* If it keeps moving, regulate it.
* If it stops moving, subsidize it.
--Ronald Reagan

On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 19:30:21 -0400, "ZenIsWhen"
<ZenIsWhen@anywhere.com> wrote:
It doesn't matter what reality, or education, you shove at bob - he haselected to remain simpleminded and ignorant.

Troll

--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

Government's view of the economy can be summed up in a few short phrases:
* If it moves, tax it.
* If it keeps moving, regulate it.
* If it stops moving, subsidize it.
--Ronald Reagan

theonewhoshallnotspeakout@emailaccount.com (Guess who?) wrote in message news:<7a350238.0406041016.4867c8ae@posting.google.com>... I found that posting on Usenet, and it is really interesting. It basically says that all U.S. states believe that there is a God. As a Scientologist, I say, thetan basically knows. Barbara Schwarz

So...which God?

"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:40c0d4a1.28656956@news-server.houston.rr.com... On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 19:04:51 GMT, "Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote: America's founders did not intend for there to be a separation of God and state, as shown by the fact that all 50 states acknowledged God in their state constitutions:

A church is not god anymore than a fan is a rock band. Perhaps even that
analogy fails. We at least have evidence that there is such a thing as rock
bands.
There's a separation of 'church' and state.
Point out where that is stated in the Constitution - give us an explicit passage.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ..."

Pretty explicit...

So, Congress shall make no law establishing a specific church, which may
worship the council of 42 gods, as the official state religion. Nor a church
which believes in Mooster the Invisible. Nor a church which believes in a
European rewrite of a Middle Easter religion. Nor a church which believes in
Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, Batman, Casper, Thor, Zeus or the Tooth
Ferry. Nor a church which believes that Elvis was Yeshua's third coming.

There can be conflicts with the principle, of course. For example, if a US
citizen creates a religion which includes sacrificing people named Bob as
part of it's sacraments, then the exercise of that aspect of the religion
would contravene the law. I suggest that the law (against murdering people,
even if they happen to be named "Bob") is more important than a persons
'right' to exercise their religion. Similarly, your neighbour may read the
Jewish or Christian Bible and interpret them as clearly stating that you
must kill your neighbour if they profane the Sabbath by working. US law
doesn't allow your neighbours (Jewish, Christian, or otherwise) to kill you,
even if they see you trimming your hedges or making a Usenet post on the
Sabbath. (Maybe you like that, maybe not, but that's how it is.)

Another way of looking at it is; 'people have only one 'right'. They have
the right to do whatever they want, as long as they don't break the law.
should be seperate Please learn how to spell - the word is "separate".

I appreciate the proof reading. I neglected to select that part when I ran
the spell checker. Fascinating use of a hyphen in your sentence - by the
way.
If there's a god (and only one) and she's omnipotent, then her will isalways done, regardless of what anyone else wants That's the (false) doctrine of predestination.

As the existence of omnipotence and free will among separate entities is
paradoxical. One or the other (or both) can't exist.
Learn some metaphysics before you venture into waters like that.

There's an infinite number of possible metaphysical systems, all of which
would be about equally likely to be true. Pick one. You have about a one in
infinite chance of it being correct (assuming that any of them are).

Karl Johanson

Exodus 31:14 'Therefore you are to observe the sabbath, for it is holy to
you. [Ex 31:15; 35:2; Num 15:32, 35; John 7:23] Everyone who profanes it
shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person
shall be cut off from among his people. (NASB)

Mat 5: 17 "17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the (22) Law or the
Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill." (NASB)

On 4 Jun 2004 11:16:43 -0700,
theonewhoshallnotspeakout@emailaccount.com (Guess who?) wrote:<America's founders did not intend for there to be a separation of God<and state, as shown by the fact that all 50 states acknowledged God in<their state constitutions:<Alabama 1901, Preamble. We the people of the State of Alabama ...<invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God,

It is "separation of "Church and State" not God and state. God is
not the church or any religion.
But here are a few words from the founding fathers about religion:

Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries,
the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with
which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent
that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a
history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize
mankind. -- Thomas Paine

I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example
of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -
the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!
-- John Adams

During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of
Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in
all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility
in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. --
James Madison

When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when
it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it
so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil
power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one. -- Benjamin
Franklin

Of note, the vast scholarly work detailing the
questionable nature and possible mythical origins
of Jesus Christ occurred (and continues to occur)
after the day and age in which Freethinkers like
Thomas Jefferson and John Adams rejected most
of the Christian bible and the Christian religions
derived there from.

Here are a few pertinent quotes from them ...

Thomas Jefferson:

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/extra/founding-fathers.html#jefferson

"In every country and every age, the priest has been
hostile to liberty.

He is always in alliance with the despot ... they have
perverted the purest religion ever preached to man
into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind,
and therefore the safer engine for their purpose."

- Thomas Jefferson, to Horatio Spafford,
March 17, 1814

- - -

"But a short time elapsed after the death of the great
reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles
were departed from by those who professed to be
his special servants, and perverted into an engine for
enslaving mankind, and aggrandizing their oppressors
in Church and State."

- Thomas Jefferson to S. Kercheval, 1810

- - -

"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden
people maintaining a free civil government.

This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their
political as well as religious leaders will always avail them-
selves for their own purpose."

- Thomas Jefferson to Baron von Humboldt, 1813

- - -

"But the greatest of all reformers of the depraved religion
of his own country, was Jesus of Nazareth.

Abstracting what is really his from the rubbish in which
it is buried, easily distinguished by its luster from the
dross of his biographers, and as separable from that
as the diamond from the dunghill, we have the outlines
of a system of the most sublime morality which has
ever fallen from the lips of man.

The establishment of the innocent and genuine character
of this benevolent morality, and the rescuing it from the
imputation of imposture, which has resulted from artificial
systems, invented by ultra-Christian sects (The immac-
ulate conception of Jesus, his deification, the creation
of the world by him, his miraculous powers, his resur-
rection and visible ascension, his corporeal presence
in the Eucharist, the Trinity; original sin, atonement,
regeneration, election, orders of the Hierarchy, etc.)
is a most desirable object."

- Thomas Jefferson to W. Short, Oct. 31, 1819

- - -

"It is not to be understood that I am with him (Jesus
Christ) in all his doctrines.

I am a Materialist; he takes the side of Spiritualism; he
preaches the efficacy of repentance toward forgiveness
of sin; I require a counterpoise of good works to redeem
it.

Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him
by his biographers, I find many passages of fine
imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely
benevolence; and others, again, of so much ignorance,
so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism and
imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such
contradictions should have proceeded from the same
being.

I separate, therefore, the gold from the dross; restore
him to the former, and leave the latter to the stupidity
of some, the roguery of others of his disciples.

Of this band of dupes and imposters, Paul was the
great Coryphaeus, and the first corrupter of the
doctrines of Jesus."

- Thomas Jefferson to W. Short, 1820

- - -

"The office of reformer of the superstitions of a
nation, is ever more dangerous.

Jesus had to work on the perilous confines of reason
and religion; and a step to the right or left might place
him within the grasp of the priests of the superstition,
a bloodthirsty race, as cruel and remorseless as the
being whom they represented as the family God of
Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob, and the local God
of Israel.

That Jesus did not mean to impose himself on mankind
as the son of God, physically speaking, I have been
convinced by the writings of men more learned than
myself in that lore."

- Thomas Jefferson to Story, Aug. 4, 1820

- - -

"The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to
the happiness of man. But compare with these the
demoralizing dogmas of Calvin.

1. That there are three Gods.

2. That good works, or the love of our neighbor,
is nothing.

3. That faith is every thing, and the more incompre-
hensible the proposition, the more merit the faith.

4. That reason in religion is of unlawful use.

5. That God, from the beginning, elected certain
individuals to be saved, and certain others to be
damned; and that no crimes of the former can
damn them; no virtues of the latter save."

- Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Waterhouse,
Jun. 26, 1822

- - -

"Creeds have been the bane of the Christian church ...
made of Christendom a slaughter-house."

- Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Waterhouse,
Jun. 26, 1822

- - -

"The truth is, that the greatest enemies of the doctrine
of Jesus are those, calling themselves the expositors
of them, who have perverted them to the structure of
a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and
without any foundation in his genuine words.

And the day will come, when the mystical generation
of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the
womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of
the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."

- Thomas Jefferson to John Adams,
Apr. 11, 1823

- - -

John Adams:

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/extra/founding-fathers.html#adams

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and
is, a revelation.

But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales,
legends, have been blended with both Jewish and
Christian revelation that have made them the most
bloody religion that ever existed?"

- John Adams, letter to F.A. Van der Kamp,
Dec. 27, 1816

- - -

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most
fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of
mankind has preserved--the Cross.

Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"

- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson

- - -

"What havoc has been made of books through every
century of the Christian era?

Where are fifty gospels, condemned as spurious by
the bull of Pope Gelasius?

Where are the forty wagon-loads of Hebrew manu-
scripts burned in France, by order of another pope,
because suspected of heresy?

Remember the 'index expurgatorius', the inquisition,
the stake, the axe, the halter and the guillotine."

- John Adams, letter to John Taylor

- - -

"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly
monopolized learning. And ever since the Reformation,
when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting
sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY?

The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly
insolence, the most yahooish brutality, is patiently
endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded.

But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of
a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you
will find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets
will swarm about your eyes and hand, and fly
into your face and eyes."

- John Adams, letter to John Taylor

--- end quotes ---

..
In the mind of Christ,
Michael


**
A preacher is the blind
leading the blind...

The Last Church
http://www.thelastchurch.org
leahcim at thelastchurch.org

alt.religion.thelastchurch
alt.religion.the-last-church

On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 20:30:27 GMT, spam@spam.com (Bob)
On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 21:23:16 +0100, Katherine Griffis-Greenberg<egylist@deadspamgriffis-consulting.com> wrote:>There's a seperation of 'church' and state.Point out where that is stated in the Constitution - give us anexplicit passage.Amendment One:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, orprohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom ofspeech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably toassemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."I do not see any separation clause there - not in the contemporarymeaning of "separation of church and state".

The courts decide the contemporary meaning of the First Amendment.
Separation of church and state is very real.
For example, I do not see where the clause abovr says it isunconstitutional for the Pledge of Allegience to have a statement"under God" in it.

Well, the 9th Circuit disagrees with you.
I do not see where the clause you cited says that Judge Roy Moore hasto remove the Ten Commandments monument from the front of the AlabamaSupreme Court building.

Again, the courts disagree with you.

And have you read the 10 Commandments?

The first 4 are completely irrelevant to the law.

The fifth (Honor thy father and mother) is a nice idea, but again
completely irrelevant, even in family court.

The 6th, now here's a commandment which belongs in court. "Thou shalt
not murder"

The 7th (no adultery) is also a nice idea - well, I suppose it is to
some - but again pretty irrelevant, except perhaps in a divorce case
involving Jews or Christian litigants.

The 8th (no stealing) is the second and last commandment that is
actually codified into current US law.

9th and 10th are just more of the same, and besides my neighbor has a
great ***, and I'll covet it and anything else she may let me to with
it.
I do not see where the clause you cited states that Christians mustremove their Christmas decorations from public view (but Jews get tokeep their religious iconography in public view).

That's quite a distortion of how things really are. You do realize that
you nazi?
If anything, the three things I just mentioned are examples of thestate infringing on the free exercise of religion, which IS prohibitedby the clause you cited above.

nope, not at all. Tell it to spinmaster O'Reilly

On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 20:30:27 GMT, spam@spam.com (Bob) in misc.legal,
wrote the following:
For example, I do not see where the clause abovr says it isunconstitutional for the Pledge of Allegience to have a statement"under God" in it.

If one does not see that a loyalty/fealty pledge to a country (which is
what a Pledge of Allegiance is) is not a product of the State, then
explaining the separation of church and state is rather a moot argument
for you, I suppose. However, legally speaking, the connection of the
two as integral parts of the oath (a belief in God is affirmed as part
of the government fealty oath) IS in fact an 'an excessive
government entanglement with religion.'

Further, the "under God" phraseology was not part of the original fealty
oath/pledge, but was added on June 14, 1954 as a response to the
government-engendered "threat" of Communism. As such, it was not part
of a required affirmation of the Pledge since its beginning. This was
one of the points raised during the Supreme Court arguments on the
Pledge.
I do not see where the clause you cited says that Judge Roy Moore hasto remove the Ten Commandments monument from the front of the AlabamaSupreme Court building.

If one does not see that prominent display of a single religious point
of view in a government building as promulgation of a religion by the
State, then explaining the separation of church and state is rather a
moot argument for you, I suppose. However, legally speaking, the
connection of the two as integral parts (display of the Ten Commandments
display in a government building while prohibiting other displays of
religious tenets in the same government building, which Moore
specifically prohibited, and actively denied when requested) IS in fact
an 'an excessive government entanglement with religion.'
I do not see where the clause you cited states that Christians mustremove their Christmas decorations from public view (but Jews get tokeep their religious iconography in public view).

For one, Christians may display public decorations of their faith on
their own private property (i.e., church grounds) to their heart's
content, as may Jews, Muslims, Taoists, Sikhs, etc. What all cannot do
is _require their display of religious decorations be presented on
government-owned public land_, which again IS in fact an 'an excessive
government entanglement with religion.' If the State chooses to display
one religion's symbols, it must display all, or take a neutral position
in regards to all religions and their promulgation. Most government
authorities take the route of a neutral position.
If anything, the three things I just mentioned are examples of thestate infringing on the free exercise of religion, which IS prohibitedby the clause you cited above.

The Supreme Court, in upholding the Establishment Clause has held that
under the Constitution the State must "...affirmatively mandate
accommodation, not merely tolerance, of _all religions_, and forbids
hostility toward any...[that there be] accommodation of all faiths and
all forms of religious expression, and hostility toward none. Through
this accommodation, [465 U.S. 668, 678] as Justice Douglas observed,
governmental action has 'follow[ed] the best of our traditions" and
"respect[ed] the religious nature of our people.'"

Source: http://laws.findlaw.com/US/465/668.html , LYNCH v. DONNELLY,
465 U.S. 668 (1984)

If the State chooses to advance one form of religion to the detriment of
other belief systems, then it is in violation of the Establishment
Clause. In such instances, most legal decisions have emphasized that
the State must either take a "religiously neutral" position in its use
of religious symbolism, phraseology, etc., or actively accommodate ALL
religious viewpoints.


--
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, J.D.

"Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is
left free to combat it."

(Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, 1801)

DISCLAIMER:

Not a practicing attorney, and no attorney-client relationship
is created. This response is for discussion purposes only. It
isn't meant to be legal advice. If you wish legal advice, seek
out an attorney in your own state who is familar with your
state's laws and applications thereof.

On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 23:27:03 -0700, Mike Z. Helm <mhelm@not.known>
wrote:
You've been exposed, you Nazi!

Troll.


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

Government's view of the economy can be summed up in a few short phrases:
* If it moves, tax it.
* If it keeps moving, regulate it.
* If it stops moving, subsidize it.
--Ronald Reagan

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 01:41:03 GMT, "Karl Johanson"
<karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote:
Point out where that is stated in the Constitution - give us an explicit passage.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, orprohibiting the free exercise thereof; ..."
Pretty explicit...

There is nothing in that clause that prohibits Judge Roy Moore from
displaying the Ten Commandments in front of the Alabama Supreme Court
building. There is nothing in that clause that prohibits the Pledge of
Allegiance from containing the phrase "under God". There is nothing in
that clause that prohibits high school football players from saying a
prayer in a huddle that is broadcast on the public address system.

If you don't like the Ten Commandments, go live in China. If you don't
like the Pledge of Allegiance, go live in China. If you don't like
public displays of prayer, go live in China.

This is America, where the Constitution protects the free exercise of
religion.
Another way of looking at it is; 'people have only one 'right'. They havethe right to do whatever they want, as long as they don't break the law.

That's ridiculous.

And so are you.

--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

Government's view of the economy can be summed up in a few short phrases:
* If it moves, tax it.
* If it keeps moving, regulate it.
* If it stops moving, subsidize it.
--Ronald Reagan

On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 23:44:07 -0700, Mike Z. Helm <mhelm@not.known>
wrote:
The courts decide the contemporary meaning of the First Amendment.

That will have to end sometime soon.
Separation of church and state is very real.

It is fabricated.
For example, I do not see where the clause abovr says it isunconstitutional for the Pledge of Allegience to have a statement"under God" in it.
Well, the 9th Circuit disagrees with you.

Omigod.

I'm outta here. This is just too much.


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

Government's view of the economy can be summed up in a few short phrases:
* If it moves, tax it.
* If it keeps moving, regulate it.
* If it stops moving, subsidize it.
--Ronald Reagan

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 08:35:38 +0100, Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
<egylist@deadspamgriffis-consulting.com> wrote:
I do not see where the clause you cited says that Judge Roy Moore hasto remove the Ten Commandments monument from the front of the AlabamaSupreme Court building.
If one does not see that prominent display of a single religious pointof view in a government building as promulgation of a religion by theState, then explaining the separation of church and state is rather amoot argument for you, I suppose.

If Moore prohibited other expressions, I would agree with you.

But I do not believe he prohibited other religious expression. The
fact that there was no other religious expression present does not
argue to the prohibition of the one form of expression that was
present.

You are a statist - a person who believes that rights come from the
state.


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

Government's view of the economy can be summed up in a few short phrases:
* If it moves, tax it.
* If it keeps moving, regulate it.
* If it stops moving, subsidize it.
--Ronald Reagan

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 13:27:56 GMT, spam@spam.com (Bob)
On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 23:44:07 -0700, Mike Z. Helm <mhelm@not.known>wrote:The courts decide the contemporary meaning of the First Amendment.That will have to end sometime soon.Separation of church and state is very real.It is fabricated.For example, I do not see where the clause abovr says it isunconstitutional for the Pledge of Allegience to have a statement"under God" in it.Well, the 9th Circuit disagrees with you.Omigod.I'm outta here. This is just too much.

wassa matta? Couldn't handle refuting my analysis of 8 of the 10
commandments?

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 08:21:15 -0700, Mike Z. Helm <mhelm@not.known>
wrote:
Well, the 9th Circuit disagrees with you.
Omigod.I'm outta here. This is just too much.
wassa matta? Couldn't handle refuting my analysis of 8 of the 10commandments?

What analysis would that be? I did not realize that the objection to
Moore's displaying the monument had anything to do with the specific
content of the Ten Commandments. I thought it had everything to do
with the assertion that the Ten Commandments were an expression of
religious belief.

Your so-called "analysis" is moot.

--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"Our country's a place of limitless hopes and
possibilities, and nowhere is that spirit more
alive than in the great nation of Texas."
--GW Bush, U.S. President from Texas

"One thing that makes George Bush such a great
president is that he does not govern according
to public opinion polls."
--John Cornyn, U.S. Senator from Texas

"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:40c1c7f1.47928487@news-server.houston.rr.com... On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 01:41:03 GMT, "Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote: Point out where that is stated in the Constitution - give us an explicit passage."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, orprohibiting the free exercise thereof; ..."Pretty explicit... There is nothing in that clause that prohibits Judge Roy Moore from displaying the Ten Commandments in front of the Alabama Supreme Court building.

So you're suddenly changing the argument to something else entirely?

One of the commandments expressly prohibits such things as the display
itself. (Have you actually read the Bible, or just some abridged version?)

Personally, I see little benefit in having a plaque which includes a listing
of working on Saturday as being a capital offence. The justice system is
supposed to work, independent of the religion of those being tried. The
perception of impartiality is impaired with such a plaque. There is little
to no consequence of not ladening a court system with religious icons &
imagery. There is a great benefit in not having them there, thus, the right
choice is to not have them.

If I were a judge at your trial & I had a big poster on the wall saying "All
who don't worship Mooster are destined to spend 42 years in the hell of
extreme itchiness" and you're not a Moosterian, would you expect to get a
moderately fair trial?

If you really are all pumped on the 'Ten Commandments' (have you ever
actually counted them?) then why not let your neighbours know & see if they
have any rocks to throw at you for the times you've profaned the Sabbath.
There is nothing in that clause that prohibits the Pledge of Allegiance from containing the phrase "under God". There is nothing in that clause that prohibits high school football players from saying a prayer in a huddle that is broadcast on the public address system. If you don't like the Ten Commandments, go live in China.

If you like the Ten Commandments go live in a theocracy (and note how long
they let you keep your internet access).

I don't live in the US. This forum is world wide.
If you don't like the Pledge of Allegiance, go live in China.
If you don't like public displays of prayer, go live in China.

When did I ever say I don't like public prayer? I don't like government
supported or mandated prayer.
This is America, where the Constitution protects the free exercise of religion.

Telling people they must acknowledge god in your pledge of allegiance isn't
free expression, it's government mandated expression. How can you not know
this?
Another way of looking at it is; 'people have only one 'right'. They havethe right to do whatever they want, as long as they don't break the law. That's ridiculous.

I thought the point might be a bit complex for you. A well...
And so are you.

Ah, insults... I guess you want one back. Bombastic pontificating
supercilious phronemophobe.

Karl Johanson
If god's omniscient, she knows you doubt. That puts you nostril deep in the
burning pitch with the rest of us.

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 19:03:48 GMT, "Karl Johanson"
<karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote:
So you're suddenly changing the argument to something else entirely?

I am going with the flow from several posters. Try not get confused -
this is not difficult to follow if you read all the posts.
One of the commandments expressly prohibits such things as the displayitself. (Have you actually read the Bible, or just some abridged version?)

Get real.
Personally, I see little benefit in having a plaque which includes a listingof working on Saturday as being a capital offence.

Your opinion is not relevant. Judge Roy Moore's is.

The govt has violated the expression of religion, which is prohibited
by the Constitution.


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"Our country's a place of limitless hopes and
possibilities, and nowhere is that spirit more
alive than in the great nation of Texas."
--GW Bush, U.S. President from Texas

"One thing that makes George Bush such a great
president is that he does not govern according
to public opinion polls."
--John Cornyn, U.S. Senator from Texas

"Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:oOowc.679374$Ig.329489@pd7tw2no... "Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message news:40c1c7f1.47928487@news-server.houston.rr.com... On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 01:41:03 GMT, "Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote: [...] supercilious phronemophobe.

Well, damn, I'll have to look that one up but I suspect ol' Bob's got his
eyebrows raised showing the whites of his eyes in fright because he's
terrified of something. Karl Johanson If god's omniscient, she knows you doubt. That puts you nostril deep in
the burning pitch with the rest of us.

"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:40c221ae.70900749@news-server.houston.rr.com... On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 19:03:48 GMT, "Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote:So you're suddenly changing the argument to something else entirely? I am going with the flow from several posters. Try not get confused - this is not difficult to follow if you read all the posts.One of the commandments expressly prohibits such things as the displayitself. (Have you actually read the Bible, or just some abridged
version?) Get real.Personally, I see little benefit in having a plaque which includes a
listingof working on Saturday as being a capital offence. Your opinion is not relevant. Judge Roy Moore's is.

He's no longer relevant. He's dead meat. He couldn't even make a living
practicing law in Bammy. The govt has violated the expression of religion, which is prohibited by the Constitution. -- Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy: http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/ "Our country's a place of limitless hopes and possibilities, and nowhere is that spirit more alive than in the great nation of Texas." --GW Bush, U.S. President from Texas "One thing that makes George Bush such a great president is that he does not govern according to public opinion polls." --John Cornyn, U.S. Senator from Texas

"Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<nJ3wc.669026$oR5.274036@pd7tw3no>... "Guess who?" <theonewhoshallnotspeakout@emailaccount.com> wrote in message America's founders did not intend for there to be a separation of God and state, as shown by the fact that all 50 states acknowledged God in their state constitutions: There's a seperation of 'church' and state. If we assume there is something supernatural, and further assume there's only one (rather than 10, 1,000,007, a centillion, etc.) then we still can only conjecture about the nature of this supernatural being. Some churches have members or leaders who are deluded into thinking they precisely know the will of this alleged being (or they pretend they know). Clearly, the state should be seperate from such folks who pass off their own conjectures as fact. Not completely though, deluded or not, members of churches should have the same right to vote as anyone else, and in the US's case they do. If there's a god (and only one) and she's omnipotent, then her will is always done, regardless of what anyone else wants, so why worry about it? Karl Johanson


This would be my solution, Karl, and all others that posted in this
tread. I would support all religions as long as they are good and
truly religious and have no other purpuse in mind.

Let's say, I would be the Governor in a State, I would allow all the
religions to be active on state grounds, and may the one with the most
truth win. Instead of making God and religion to the devil, I would
say, hey, come you all, lets argue and discuss, let people listen and
the religion with that makes most sense, will get their reward, not
from the government, but from the people, which is more members.

The government should not force ONE religion on the people, but boxing
all religious people out and being afraid to speak the word God out is
rather insane.

You spoke of God as a she.
I think that God's first choice for taking a human body would be a
male one. However, there is no doubt in my mind that Jesus was a
woman.

God could be omnipotent and being a forceful leader. For example,
whenever people do something bad, he could kick that globe like a
football through the universe. But that is not him. His mission is
making people understand that they have to get along, that they have
to build a better civilization. The bad people are the problem and to
be worried about, people that enslave and kill others and can't let
others live in peace.

Barbara Schwarz

"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:40c221ae.70900749@news-server.houston.rr.com... On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 19:03:48 GMT, "Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote:So you're suddenly changing the argument to something else entirely? I am going with the flow from several posters. Try not get confused - this is not difficult to follow if you read all the posts.

I have no problem with a discussion going off on tangents. I just note that
when you were shown to be wrong on one point, you quickly changed to
another.
One of the commandments expressly prohibits such things as the displayitself. (Have you actually read the Bible, or just some abridged
version?) Get real.

So, I'll put you down as a 'no' then.
Personally, I see little benefit in having a plaque which includes a
listingof working on Saturday as being a capital offence. Your opinion is not relevant. Judge Roy Moore's is.

So has Judge Roy Moore ever profaned the Sabbath by working on it? Would Roy
volunteer to be stoned to death for it?
The govt has violated the expression of religion, which is prohibited by the Constitution.

He wasn't making an expression as an individual, but as a representative of
the government. He'd be allowed to put such a thing on his own yard
(although, again, it would violate one of the 'ten commandments'.)

Karl Johanson

>> If there's a god (and only one) and she's omnipotent, then her will is always done, regardless of what anyone else wants, so why worry about it? Karl JohansonThis would be my solution, Karl, and all others that posted in thistread. I would support all religions as long as they are good andtruly religious and have no other purpuse in mind.

Religions ALWAYS have another purpose in mind. Funding. I see no
reason why government money, which is taken from people at the point
of a gun or the threat of one, should be used to support religion.
Any religion.
Let's say, I would be the Governor in a State, I would allow all thereligions to be active on state grounds, and may the one with the mosttruth win.

The belief that there is One True Religion is itself a religion.
The government shouldn't be deciding which religion "wins" or even
that there needs to be a "winner". There should be room in the
world for minority religions, even minority religions with one
member. And since religions believe in things ON FAITH, there is
no remotely objective way to evaluate which one has "the most truth".
Instead of making God and religion to the devil, I would

You mean "instead of making the devil and religion to God", don't
you?
say, hey, come you all, lets argue and discuss, let people listen andthe religion with that makes most sense, will get their reward, notfrom the government, but from the people, which is more members.

Fine, but let them do it on their OWN property with their OWN money.
You shouldn't be preaching religion to people at a place where they
aren't there voluntarily and are not free to leave (hint: this
includes public schools). If you can get them to come to your
church, or they are willing to listen to you at your their own home,
fine, go ahead.
The government should not force ONE religion on the people, but boxingall religious people out and being afraid to speak the word God out israther insane.

I don't know of any government regulation that does that when people
try to get the word out on their own property and with their own
money. The restrictions usually objected to are doing it on
government property, doing it with government money or government
employee time (when they are on the clock), or doing it where they
have a captive audience (public schools).

God is a wonderful thing. Don't let the government ruin this by
screwing it up as badly as it screws everything else up.

Gordon L. Burditt

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 13:31:01 GMT, spam@spam.com (Bob) in misc.legal,
wrote the following:
On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 08:35:38 +0100, Katherine Griffis-Greenberg<egylist@deadspamgriffis-consulting.com> wrote:I do not see where the clause you cited says that Judge Roy Moore hasto remove the Ten Commandments monument from the front of the AlabamaSupreme Court building.If one does not see that prominent display of a single religious pointof view in a government building as promulgation of a religion by theState, then explaining the separation of church and state is rather amoot argument for you, I suppose.If Moore prohibited other expressions, I would agree with you.But I do not believe he prohibited other religious expression. Thefact that there was no other religious expression present does notargue to the prohibition of the one form of expression that waspresent.

As noted in the 11th Circuit case of _Glassroth v. Moore_ [229 F.
Supp. 2d], Moore was obviously acting as a state representative in
maintaining the prominence of the display, mainly by denying others
their chance to express their views using a combination of legal and
quasi religious rationale:

"...The rotunda is open to the public, but it is not a public forum
where citizens can place their own displays. Glassroth, 229 F. Supp.
2d at 1303. Chief Justice Moore has denied the two requests that have
been made to place other displays in the rotunda. He did so because he
believed that those displays would have been inconsistent with the
rotunda's theme of the moral foundation of law. An Alabama State
Representative asked the Chief Justice if a monument containing the
Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s famous 'I Have a Dream' speech could
be placed in the rotunda. The Chief Justice denied the request in a
letter, stating that, 'The placement of a speech of any man alongside
the revealed law of God would tend in consequence to diminish the very
purpose of the Ten Commandments monument.' Id. at 1297. He also denied
an atheist group’s request to display a symbol of atheism in the
rotunda. Id.

The Chief Justice did add two smaller displays to the rotunda at some
point after the Ten Commandments monument was installed. The first, a
plaque entitled 'Moral Foundation of Law,' contains a quotation from the
Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s letter from the Birmingham jail
speaking of just laws and 'the moral law or law of God,' and a quotation
from Frederick Douglass speaking of slavery as hiding man 'from the laws
of God.' Id. at 1324-25 (App. D - providing a full quotation of the
plaque)...The Chief Justice added both plaques because he thought that
they 'comported with the "moral foundation of law theme."' Id. The two
plaques are inconspicuous compared to the Ten Commandments monument.
Each is not only much smaller than the monument, but also is located
seventy-five feet from it. A person standing in front of the monument
cannot see either plaque. Nothing about their location or appearance
indicates that they are connected to the monument. Id."
You are a statist - a person who believes that rights come from thestate.

Actually, no, but I do believe in complying with the federal US
Constitution as the law of the land. That is, after all, the basis of
US law.

If you have a problem with the separation of church and state, then
perhaps you are just unhappy with US law. Take it up with the Court,
however, as it stated clearly the same arguments as I noted. Obviously,
the 11th Circuit took a dim view of Moore's alleged defense of the
display as commanding a respect for law, and so forth, saying:

"...The breadth of the Chief Justice's position is illustrated by his
counsel's concession at oral argument that if we adopted his position,
the Chief Justice would be free to adorn the walls of the Alabama
Supreme Court's courtroom with sectarian religious murals and have
decidedly religious quotations painted above the bench. Every
government building could be topped with a cross, or a menorah,or a
statue of Buddha, depending upon the views of the officials with
authority over the premises. A crèche could occupy the place of honor
in the lobby or rotunda of every municipal, county, state, and federal
building. Proselytizing religious messages could be played over the
public address system in every government building at the whim of the
official in charge of the premises.

However appealing those prospects may be to some, the position Chief
Justice Moore takes is foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent. County
of Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 612, 109 S. Ct. at 3110, which held
unconstitutional the placement of a crèche in the lobby of a
courthouse, stands foursquare against the notion that the
Establishment Clause permits government to promote religion so long as
it does not command or prohibit conduct. Id., 109 S. Ct. at 3110 ('To
be sure, some Christians may wish to see the government proclaim its
allegiance to Christianity in a religious celebration of Christmas,
but the Constitution does not permit the gratification of that desire,
which would contradict ‘the logic of secular liberty' it is the
purpose of the Establishment Clause to protect.') (citation omitted)."

Source: http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/ops/200216708.pdf


--
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, J.D.

"Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is
left free to combat it."

(Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, 1801)

DISCLAIMER:

Not a practicing attorney, and no attorney-client relationship
is created. This response is for discussion purposes only. It
isn't meant to be legal advice. If you wish legal advice, seek
out an attorney in your own state who is familar with your
state's laws and applications thereof.

Correct. There was never intended to be a "Seperation of Church and
State". What the Constitution actually says is that "Congress shall
make no laws respecting the establishment of religion nor prohibiting
the free excercise thereof" (not sure if that is exact).

This means that in the eyes of Congress, religion does not exist, and
that would include God. That doesn't apply to schools or whatever,
only to Congress. Congress can not tell the schools to worship, pray,
or whatever, nor can they tell them not to. Religion is completely
invisible to Congress.

Now, "Seperation of Church and State", that means something completely
different. That is not in the Constitution at all.

Personally though, I prefer not having religion in schools or in
government things. I especially do not like the idea of a chaplin
leading Congress in prayer before they vote on laws. That is
unconstitutional!

Tony

theonewhoshallnotspeakout@emailaccount.com (Guess who?) wrote in message news:<7a350238.0406041016.4867c8ae@posting.google.com>... I found that posting on Usenet, and it is really interesting. It basically says that all U.S. states believe that there is a God. As a Scientologist, I say, thetan basically knows. Barbara Schwarz -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Separation of God and state? Posted: October 11, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern By William J. Federer America's founders did not intend for there to be a separation of God and state, as shown by the fact that all 50 states acknowledged God in their state constitutions: 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 ... Alaska 1956, Preamble. We, the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land ... Arizona 1911, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution ... Arkansas 1874, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arkansas, grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government ... California 1879, Preamble. We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom ... Colorado 1876, Preamble. We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of Universe ... Connecticut 1818, Preamble. The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy ... Delaware 1897, Preamble. Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences ... Florida 1885, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Florida, grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty ... establish this Constitution ... Georgia 1777, Preamble. We, the people of Georgia, relying upon protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution ... Hawaii 1959, Preamble. We, the people of Hawaii, Grateful for Divine Guidance ... establish this Constitution ... Idaho 1889, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Idaho, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings ... Illinois 1870, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors ... Indiana 1851, Preamble. We, the People of the State of Indiana, grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to chose our form of government ... Iowa 1857, Preamble. We, the People of the State of Iowa, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings ... establish this Constitution ... Kansas 1859, Preamble. We, the people of Kansas, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges ... establish this Constitution ... Kentucky 1891, Preamble. We, the people of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties ... Louisiana 1921, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Louisiana, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy ... Maine 1820, Preamble. We the People of Maine ... acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity ... and imploring His aid and direction ... Maryland 1776, Preamble. We, the people of the state of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty ... Massachusetts 1780, Preamble. We...the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe... in the course of His Providence, an opportunity ... and devoutly imploring His direction ... Michigan 1908, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom ... establish this Constitution ... Minnesota, 1857, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings ... Mississippi 1890, Preamble. We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work ... Missouri 1945, Preamble. We, the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness ... establish this Constitution ... Montana 1889, Preamble. We, the people of Montana, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty ... establish this Constitution ... Nebraska 1875, Preamble. We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom ... establish this Constitution ... Nevada 1864, Preamble. We the people of the State of Nevada, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom ... establish this Constitution ... New Hampshire 1792, Part I. Art. I. Sec. V. Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience ... New Jersey 1844, Preamble. We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors ? New Mexico 1911, Preamble. We, the People of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty ... New York 1846, Preamble. We, the people of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings ... North Carolina 1868, Preamble. We the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for ... our civil, political, and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those ... North Dakota 1889, Preamble. We, the people of North Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain... Ohio 1852, Preamble. We the people of the state of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to promote our common ... Oklahoma 1907, Preamble. Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty ... establish this ... Oregon 1857, Bill of Rights, Article I. Section 2. All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences ... Pennsylvania 1776, Preamble. We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance ... Rhode Island 1842, Preamble. We the People of the State of Rhode Island ... grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing ... South Carolina, 1778, Preamble. We, the people of the State of South Carolina ... grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution ... South Dakota 1889, Preamble. We, the people of South Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties ... establish this Constitution ... Tennessee 1796, Art. XI.III. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience ... Texas 1845, Preamble. We the People of the Republic of Texas, acknowledging, with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God ... Utah 1896, Preamble. Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we ... establish this Constitution ... Vermont 1777, Preamble. Whereas all government ought to ... enable the individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and other blessings which the Author of Existence has bestowed on man ... Virginia 1776, Bill of Rights, XVI ... Religion, or the Duty which we owe our Creator ... can be directed only by Reason ... and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards each other ... Washington 1889, Preamble. We the People of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution ... West Virginia 1872, Preamble. Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West Virginia ... reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God ... Wisconsin 1848, Preamble. We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, domestic tranquility ... Wyoming 1890, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Wyoming, grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties ... establish this Constitution ... After reviewing acknowledgments of God from all 50 state constitutions, one is faced with the prospect that maybe, just maybe, the ACLU and the out-of-control federal courts are wrong.

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 19:42:28 GMT, spam@spam.com (Bob)
On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 19:03:48 GMT, "Karl Johanson"<karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote:So you're suddenly changing the argument to something else entirely?I am going with the flow from several posters. Try not get confused -this is not difficult to follow if you read all the posts.One of the commandments expressly prohibits such things as the displayitself. (Have you actually read the Bible, or just some abridged version?)Get real.Personally, I see little benefit in having a plaque which includes a listingof working on Saturday as being a capital offence.Your opinion is not relevant. Judge Roy Moore's is.

Actually, it isn't. Remember, he lost his case.
The govt has violated the expression of religion, which is prohibitedby the Constitution.

If Moore wants to put that monstrosity in his front yard, he's certainly
welcome to do so.

If he wants to have it hollowed out and turned into his tomb, he's
welcome to do that as well.

How many people actually question that?Think before you believe in
something!
"Guess who?" <theonewhoshallnotspeakout@emailaccount.com> wrote in message
news:7a350238.0406041016.4867c8ae@posting.google.c om... I found that posting on Usenet, and it is really interesting. It basically says that all U.S. states believe that there is a God. As a Scientologist, I say, thetan basically knows. Barbara Schwarz --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------ Separation of God and state? Posted: October 11, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern By William J. Federer America's founders did not intend for there to be a separation of God and state, as shown by the fact that all 50 states acknowledged God in their state constitutions: 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 ... Alaska 1956, Preamble. We, the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land ... Arizona 1911, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution ... Arkansas 1874, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arkansas, grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government ... California 1879, Preamble. We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom ... Colorado 1876, Preamble. We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of Universe ... Connecticut 1818, Preamble. The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy ... Delaware 1897, Preamble. Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences ... Florida 1885, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Florida, grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty ... establish this Constitution ... Georgia 1777, Preamble. We, the people of Georgia, relying upon protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution ... Hawaii 1959, Preamble. We, the people of Hawaii, Grateful for Divine Guidance ... establish this Constitution ... Idaho 1889, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Idaho, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings ... Illinois 1870, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors ... Indiana 1851, Preamble. We, the People of the State of Indiana, grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to chose our form of government ... Iowa 1857, Preamble. We, the People of the State of Iowa, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings ... establish this Constitution ... Kansas 1859, Preamble. We, the people of Kansas, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges ... establish this Constitution ... Kentucky 1891, Preamble. We, the people of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties ... Louisiana 1921, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Louisiana, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy ... Maine 1820, Preamble. We the People of Maine ... acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity ... and imploring His aid and direction ... Maryland 1776, Preamble. We, the people of the state of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty ... Massachusetts 1780, Preamble. We...the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe... in the course of His Providence, an opportunity ... and devoutly imploring His direction ... Michigan 1908, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom ... establish this Constitution ... Minnesota, 1857, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings ... Mississippi 1890, Preamble. We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work ... Missouri 1945, Preamble. We, the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness ... establish this Constitution ... Montana 1889, Preamble. We, the people of Montana, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty ... establish this Constitution ... Nebraska 1875, Preamble. We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom ... establish this Constitution ... Nevada 1864, Preamble. We the people of the State of Nevada, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom ... establish this Constitution ... New Hampshire 1792, Part I. Art. I. Sec. V. Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience ... New Jersey 1844, Preamble. We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors . New Mexico 1911, Preamble. We, the People of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty ... New York 1846, Preamble. We, the people of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings ... North Carolina 1868, Preamble. We the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for ... our civil, political, and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those ... North Dakota 1889, Preamble. We, the people of North Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain... Ohio 1852, Preamble. We the people of the state of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to promote our common ... Oklahoma 1907, Preamble. Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty ... establish this ... Oregon 1857, Bill of Rights, Article I. Section 2. All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences ... Pennsylvania 1776, Preamble. We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance ... Rhode Island 1842, Preamble. We the People of the State of Rhode Island ... grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing ... South Carolina, 1778, Preamble. We, the people of the State of South Carolina ... grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution ... South Dakota 1889, Preamble. We, the people of South Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties ... establish this Constitution ... Tennessee 1796, Art. XI.III. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience ... Texas 1845, Preamble. We the People of the Republic of Texas, acknowledging, with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God ... Utah 1896, Preamble. Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we ... establish this Constitution ... Vermont 1777, Preamble. Whereas all government ought to ... enable the individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and other blessings which the Author of Existence has bestowed on man ... Virginia 1776, Bill of Rights, XVI ... Religion, or the Duty which we owe our Creator ... can be directed only by Reason ... and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards each other ... Washington 1889, Preamble. We the People of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution ... West Virginia 1872, Preamble. Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West Virginia ... reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God ... Wisconsin 1848, Preamble. We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, domestic tranquility ... Wyoming 1890, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Wyoming, grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties ... establish this Constitution ... After reviewing acknowledgments of God from all 50 state constitutions, one is faced with the prospect that maybe, just maybe, the ACLU and the out-of-control federal courts are wrong.

"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:40c1c7f1.47928487@news-server.houston.rr.com... On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 01:41:03 GMT, "Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote: Point out where that is stated in the Constitution - give us an explicit passage."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, orprohibiting the free exercise thereof; ..."Pretty explicit... There is nothing in that clause that prohibits Judge Roy Moore from displaying the Ten Commandments in front of the Alabama Supreme Court building. There is nothing in that clause that prohibits the Pledge of Allegiance from containing the phrase "under God". There is nothing in that clause that prohibits high school football players from saying a prayer in a huddle that is broadcast on the public address system.

Get a brain, moron!
Intelligent people, including decades of Supreme Court decision, have
decided that the Constitution is NOT to be taken ONLY literally!

It is insane and ridicuolus to do so!

If the Congress of the United States is not allowed to push religion on the
people - then NEITHER IS JUDGE MOORE!



If you don't like the Ten Commandments, go live in China. If you don't like the Pledge of Allegiance, go live in China. If you don't like public displays of prayer, go live in China. This is America, where the Constitution protects the free exercise of religion.

Dip**** - that "righht" is NOT absolute!
You have EVERY right to practice your religion.
That does NOT include using public property OR a public position to PUSH
your religion!

Sone your simple mind canot comprehend this, it must be stated - there is
ONE HELL of a difference between you or Judge Moore practicinig your
religion - and Judge Moore using his power and positin to place a marble
statue honoring his religon on public property!

If the freedom is a absolute as you insanely think - then my religion
demands I make a human sacrific of the most idiotic loser I can find ......
I expect you to report to me immediately!

gordonb.10zlz@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) wrote in message news:<c9tfqj$r87@library2.airnews.net>... If there's a god (and only one) and she's omnipotent, then her will is always done, regardless of what anyone else wants, so why worry about it? Karl JohansonThis would be my solution, Karl, and all others that posted in thistread. I would support all religions as long as they are good andtruly religious and have no other purpuse in mind. Religions ALWAYS have another purpose in mind. Funding. I see no reason why government money, which is taken from people at the point of a gun or the threat of one, should be used to support religion. Any religion.

Sure, there are bad apples in churches, but religion is good. It makes
many people develop a conscience, and people should think about what
was before the birth and will come after death. It is important to
figure that out.

Yes, religions want fundings, that is true, but don't forget that
religions have many resources, people that could pitch in and help a
government tremendously on certain subjects. It is kind of foolish not
to work with them because some people can't have it if somebody of
them tells them that God loves them, (the Christians) or tells them to
live ethical lives (the Scientologists). Nobody should force his
religion on others, but not to use offerings of religious groups to
help solve problems is a waste of resources with which a state could
work.
Let's say, I would be the Governor in a State, I would allow all thereligions to be active on state grounds, and may the one with the mosttruth win. The belief that there is One True Religion is itself a religion. The government shouldn't be deciding which religion "wins" or even that there needs to be a "winner". There should be room in the world for minority religions, even minority religions with one member. And since religions believe in things ON FAITH, there is no remotely objective way to evaluate which one has "the most truth".

The government should not make the decision, but people should.
Imagine religion being asked by the people how they would handle for
example one problem. The religions (representives) could have a debate
and you, the individual decide. I think the religion with most sanity,
wisdom and humanity would be clearly favored at the end, but not by
the gov, but my each individual at a time.

Instead of making God and religion to the devil, I would You mean "instead of making the devil and religion to God", don't you?

No, I mean that there are movements all over the world that people
hate God and religions. They speak about those as they would be the
devil and nothing can be worse than religion, and they blame God on
anything, and also deny him. That is insanity.say, hey, come you all, lets argue and discuss, let people listen andthe religion with that makes most sense, will get their reward, notfrom the government, but from the people, which is more members. Fine, but let them do it on their OWN property with their OWN money.

If governmental property is not used at the time them want to speak,
why not on governmental property. Government just has to restrain from
favoring one.
You shouldn't be preaching religion to people at a place where they aren't there voluntarily and are not free to leave (hint: this includes public schools). If you can get them to come to your church, or they are willing to listen to you at your their own home, fine, go ahead.

You always have to make religious service voluntary, that includes the
school.The government should not force ONE religion on the people, but boxingall religious people out and being afraid to speak the word God out israther insane. I don't know of any government regulation that does that when people try to get the word out on their own property and with their own money. The restrictions usually objected to are doing it on government property, doing it with government money or government employee time (when they are on the clock), or doing it where they have a captive audience (public schools).

I think it is hysterical. I am no Christians, but instead of mowing
down the Ten Commendments before a church building, I would ask any
other religion in town to put their monument on the place up too. God is a wonderful thing.
God is no thing. He is the perfect being. And he is very very good and
wise.

Don't let the government ruin this by screwing it up as badly as it screws everything else up. Gordon L. Burditt

Don't favor one but let all the religions speak and help, that is my
solution.

Barbara Schwarz

"Barbara Schwarz" <StilllovingMarty@myway.com> wrote in message
news:bf456302.0406061437.6651f267@posting.google.c om... "Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:<dzrwc.677480$oR5.565636@pd7tw3no>... "Barbara Schwarz" <StilllovingMarty@myway.com> wrote in message news:bf456302.0406051315.30a1ae48@posting.google.c om... "Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<nJ3wc.669026$oR5.274036@pd7tw3no>... > "Guess who?" <theonewhoshallnotspeakout@emailaccount.com> wrote in message > > > America's founders did not intend for there to be a separation of
God > > and state, as shown by the fact that all 50 states acknowledged
God in > > their state constitutions: > > There's a seperation of 'church' and state. If we assume there is something > supernatural, and further assume there's only one (rather than 10, > 1,000,007, a centillion, etc.) then we still can only conjecture
about the > nature of this supernatural being. Some churches have members or
leaders who > are deluded into thinking they precisely know the will of this
alleged being > (or they pretend they know). Clearly, the state should be seperate
from such > folks who pass off their own conjectures as fact. Not completely
though, > deluded or not, members of churches should have the same right to
vote as > anyone else, and in the US's case they do. > > If there's a god (and only one) and she's omnipotent, then her will
is > always done, regardless of what anyone else wants, so why worry
about it? > > Karl Johanson This would be my solution, Karl, and all others that posted in this tread. I would support all religions as long as they are good and truly religious and have no other purpuse in mind. 'Good' is good. Let's say, I would be the Governor in a State, I would allow all the religions to be active on state grounds, and may the one with the most truth win. Instead of making God and religion to the devil, I would say, hey, come you all, lets argue and discuss, let people listen and the religion with that makes most sense, will get their reward, not from the government, but from the people, which is more members. The government should not force ONE religion on the people, but boxing all religious people out and being afraid to speak the word God out is rather insane. Keeping government representatives from expressing their religious
opinions while representing the government, is a good idea though. If your a
teacher and you want to pray, do so. If you want to pray in front of your
students, it's not such a good idea. If you want to force your students to pray,
its a bad idea. If you want to be a judge, expressing religious beliefs
doesn't show a sense of impartiality to those you're residing over. If the same judge wants to go home and sing carols to Mooster, that's fine. Of course, nobody in official authority should force his religion on others, but if a school for example would allow all religions who want to have after school activities on school grounds, I would not object. Religion is not the devil. Truly religious people likely have more a conscience than people that don't believe in anything.

Bull!!!!!

"Barbara Schwarz" <StilllovingMarty@myway.com> wrote in message
Sure, there are bad apples in churches, but religion is good. It makes many people develop a conscience,

That may or may not be so. What evidence do you suggest supports it? Some
studies suggest that atheists are under represented in prison populations.
and people should think about what was before the birth and will come after death. It is important to figure that out.

Religion isn't about figuring that, or anything else, out. It's about
arbitrarily deciding to believe in something, despite a lack of evidence.
Conjecturing about what may or may not happen after death, is very different
than preaching your conjectures to folks and telling them that it's fact.
Yes, religions want fundings, that is true, but don't forget that religions have many resources, people that could pitch in and help a government tremendously on certain subjects.

Yes, some good work is done by some churches (or members of some churches.
At the same time, some churches in North America helped teach native
children that their religions were evil, burned totem poles and abused them
for speaking their native languages.
No, I mean that there are movements all over the world that people hate God and religions.

Few 'hate' god. Some think it's just superstition, on par with Santa Claus.
They speak about those as they would be the devil and nothing can be worse than religion, and they blame God on anything, and also deny him. That is insanity.

There may be any number of gods in the universe, from zero to infinity.
You've denied all but one. I've denied one more than you have. Are we not
pretty close to 'insane', by your standards?
You always have to make religious service voluntary, that includes the school.

Very well said.
I think it is hysterical. I am no Christians, but instead of mowing down the Ten Commendments before a church building, I would ask any other religion in town to put their monument on the place up too.

You would leave up a plaque which includes a suggestion that gods wants us
to kill our neighbors if they work on Saturday?
God is a wonderful thing.
God is no thing. He is the perfect being. And he is very very good and wise.

Then why does the Bible tell me that god wants me to stone women who are
raped within a city?

Karl Johansin

>> >This would be my solution, Karl, and all others that posted in thistread. I would support all religions as long as they are good andtruly religious and have no other purpuse in mind. Religions ALWAYS have another purpose in mind. Funding. I see no reason why government money, which is taken from people at the point of a gun or the threat of one, should be used to support religion. Any religion.Sure, there are bad apples in churches, but religion is good. It makesmany people develop a conscience, and people should think abou