| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
RhymeCon
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 12:34 pm Post subject: Re: STAMP OUT SEPARATION - of church and state ***** |
 |
|
On Aug 1, 3:09 pm, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
| Quote: | On Aug 1, 8:36 am, Knuje <knujonmap...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Shall we make Pandeism the official state religion, then?
Nope. Pastafarianism. I plan to have a worship service tonight, with
a little Farfalle with vodka cream sauce and roast chicken.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
|
There is just plain something screwy about Google Groups. My computer
needed replacing, so it isn't the fault of my hardware. I joined this
group so I could reply to Buckeye's above post. I enter my comments.
But when I try to SEND them the program sends something else in my
name. His comment that I was trying to address reads
Quote:
RhymeCon, "the "Rhyming Conservative"
STAMP OUT SEPARATION - of church and state
http://rhymecon.tripod.com/2/
A real 100% radical right (along the lines of Ken) nitcase
-End of Quote
I haven't a clue who Ken is but how does he reach his conclusions
about RhymeCon knowing zero about RhymeCon?
Now "RhymeCon" is a "radical right"? Sounds like he's been demoted by
an "R" since Buckeye used to call him an RRR, or Rolicking Religious
Rightist (known only by the psychic, Buckeye, who instictively can
tell at a distance whether someone is a fundamentlist theocrat - and
a LIAR too, by the way). Actually RhymeCon is not even close to a
fundamentalist, while although a regular church-goer he thinks of
himself as a seeker, not a teacher, and has a pretty strong feeling
that Christians who get to heaven might be surprised to find many non-
Christians there, with a few atheists included, people who served
Christ by showing compassion to "the least of these his
brethern." (Mat. 25)
And RhymeCon is not even close to a theocrat, either; He has NO desire
to see his church, or any religion, running the government, and
believes implicitly in the 1st amendment's non-establishment of
religion and also the freedom of religion. And he despises the
metaphor "Separation of Church State" not because he wants to see
government influencing religion but because he wants to see churches
having just as much right to influence government as every other
organization. That stupid metaphor would (if it were a law) work in
both directions (Assoc. Justice Hugo Black said so) while the 1st
amendment religion clauses clearly create a one-way street.
RhymeCon
http://rhymecon.tripod.com
http://rhymecon.tripod.com/2/ |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 8:42 pm Post subject: Re: STAMP OUT SEPARATION - of church and state ***** |
|
|
On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 05:34:35 -0700 (PDT), RhymeCon
<bob4@neo.rr.com> wrote:
| Quote: | And he despises the
metaphor "Separation of Church State" not because he wants to see
government influencing religion but because he wants to see churches
having just as much right to influence government as every other
organization.
|
They can---but not at taxpayer expense
They are (for the most part), exempt from taxation.
THerefore, to use a tax free status to advocate
for/against policy from the entity (government/people)
is prohibited.
Every individual belonging to any church can, in the
public venue, express themselves as any other citizen.
Want your church to enjoy that "same right"-----Then
give up tax free status. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
RhymeCon
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 11:34 pm Post subject: Re: STAMP OUT SEPARATION - of church and state ***** |
|
|
On Aug 3, 8:42 am, Nick...@Click.com wrote:
| Quote: | On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 05:34:35 -0700 (PDT), RhymeCon
b...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
And he despises the
metaphor "Separation of Church State" not because he wants to see
government influencing religion but because he wants to see churches
having just as much right to influence government as every other
organization.
They can---but not at taxpayer expense
They are (for the most part), exempt from taxation.
THerefore, to use a tax free status to advocate
for/against policy from the entity (government/people)
is prohibited.
Every individual belonging to any church can, in the
public venue, express themselves as any other citizen.
Want your church to enjoy that "same right"-----Then
give up tax free status.
|
Dear Nick,
I'm sorry but I believe you're mistaken. Churches are governed by the
same IRS rules as everybody else, in fact they're discriminated
AGAINST at one point. First, they're non-profit organizations, like
ACLU and Americans United for Sep. of Ch & St. and American Cancer
Society and thousands of other non prifits that are termed 501(c)(3)'s
by the IRS. And I want to furnish links to verify everything I say so
I hope you won't mind if I link you to an article on my own site,
entitled "Churches MAY Intervene in Government," It already has links
to the appropriate portions of the IRS Code.
<A href=http://rhymecon.tripod.com/2/index.html#religion>(I'm afraid
you might have to copy that into your browser; I don't know how to do
it in Vista. Sorry.)
All 501(c)(3)'s are tax exempt and cotributions to them are tax-exempt
too. They are NOT prohibitted from getting involved in all
governmental matters, ACLU and AU being spectacular examples, but must
abide by two rules: (1) they must not get involved in a candidate's
political campaign and (2) they must not lobby, (endorse or oppose
specific legislation) to a substantial degree. And what does
"substantial" mean? I don't know, and no one else does either. The IRS
Code of 1934 has never defined it. But recently Congress enacted a
definition of how much a 501(c)(3) can spend for lobbying and it's
based on a percentage of their total budget and can be as high as one
million per year, but that's only if they sign the "h" election which
commits them to keeping certain records etc. And it applies to all
501(c)(3)'s except one type: churches. That's the point at which
churches are discriminated against.
So that's about it. If you'd like, I'd be happy to discuss it with you
furthur.
RymeCon |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 5:32 am Post subject: Re: STAMP OUT SEPARATION - of church and state ***** |
|
|
On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 16:34:29 -0700 (PDT), RhymeCon
<bob4@neo.rr.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Aug 3, 8:42=A0am, Nick...@Click.com wrote:
On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 05:34:35 -0700 (PDT), RhymeCon
b...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
And he despises the
metaphor "Separation of Church State" not because he wants to see
government influencing religion but because he wants to see churches
having just as much right to influence government as every other
organization.
They can---but not at taxpayer expense
They are (for the most part), exempt from taxation.
THerefore, to use a =A0tax free status to advocate
for/against policy from the entity (government/people)
is prohibited.
Every individual belonging to any church can, in the
public venue, express themselves as any other citizen.
Want your church to enjoy that "same right"-----Then
give up tax free status.
Dear Nick,
I'm sorry but I believe you're mistaken. Churches are governed by the
same IRS rules as everybody else
|
No, they're not. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
4125 Dead
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 6:44 am Post subject: Re: STAMP OUT SEPARATION - of church and state ***** |
|
|
On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 18:32:15 -0600, Nicklas@Click.com wrote:
| Quote: | On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 16:34:29 -0700 (PDT), RhymeCon
bob4@neo.rr.com> wrote:
On Aug 3, 8:42=A0am, Nick...@Click.com wrote:
On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 05:34:35 -0700 (PDT), RhymeCon
b...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
And he despises the
metaphor "Separation of Church State" not because he wants to see
government influencing religion but because he wants to see churches
having just as much right to influence government as every other
organization.
They can---but not at taxpayer expense
They are (for the most part), exempt from taxation.
THerefore, to use a =A0tax free status to advocate
for/against policy from the entity (government/people)
is prohibited.
Every individual belonging to any church can, in the
public venue, express themselves as any other citizen.
Want your church to enjoy that "same right"-----Then
give up tax free status.
Dear Nick,
I'm sorry but I believe you're mistaken. Churches are governed by the
same IRS rules as everybody else
No, they're not.
|
Indeed.
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:d1b8k190T4gJ:www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf+IRS+religious+exemption&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a
--
What do you call a Republican with a conscience?
An ex-Republican.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827 (From Yang, AthD (h.c)
"Prosperity and peace are in the balance," -- Putsch, not admitting that he's against both
Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
Zepps_News-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essays-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Reverand K
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 4:52 pm Post subject: Re: STAMP OUT SEPARATION - of church and state ***** |
|
|
On Aug 3, 7:34 pm, RhymeCon <b...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Aug 3, 8:42 am, Nick...@Click.com wrote:
On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 05:34:35 -0700 (PDT), RhymeCon
b...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
And he despises the
metaphor "Separation of Church State" not because he wants to see
government influencing religion but because he wants to see churches
having just as much right to influence government as every other
organization.
They can---but not at taxpayer expense
They are (for the most part), exempt from taxation.
THerefore, to use a tax free status to advocate
for/against policy from the entity (government/people)
is prohibited.
Every individual belonging to any church can, in the
public venue, express themselves as any other citizen.
Want your church to enjoy that "same right"-----Then
give up tax free status.
Dear Nick,
I'm sorry but I believe you're mistaken. Churches are governed by the
same IRS rules as everybody else, in fact they're discriminated
AGAINST at one point. First, they're non-profit organizations, like
ACLU and Americans United for Sep. of Ch & St. and American Cancer
Society and thousands of other non prifits that are termed 501(c)(3)'s
by the IRS. And I want to furnish links to verify everything I say so
I hope you won't mind if I link you to an article on my own site,
entitled "Churches MAY Intervene in Government," It already has links
to the appropriate portions of the IRS Code.
A href=http://rhymecon.tripod.com/2/index.html#religion>(I'm afraid
you might have to copy that into your browser; I don't know how to do
it in Vista. Sorry.)
All 501(c)(3)'s are tax exempt and cotributions to them are tax-exempt
too. They are NOT prohibitted from getting involved in all
governmental matters, ACLU and AU being spectacular examples, but must
abide by two rules: (1) they must not get involved in a candidate's
political campaign and (2) they must not lobby, (endorse or oppose
specific legislation) to a substantial degree. And what does
"substantial" mean? I don't know, and no one else does either. The IRS
Code of 1934 has never defined it. But recently Congress enacted a
definition of how much a 501(c)(3) can spend for lobbying and it's
based on a percentage of their total budget and can be as high as one
million per year, but that's only if they sign the "h" election which
commits them to keeping certain records etc. And it applies to all
501(c)(3)'s except one type: churches. That's the point at which
churches are discriminated against.
So that's about it. If you'd like, I'd be happy to discuss it with you
furthur.
RymeCon- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
As a minister and a Libertarian I actually agree the government is not
allowed to establish a religion. There is nothing about a church or
religious organization not paying taxes if anything a charitable
religious organization should get simple not-for-profit status just on
that aspect of their work. I run a chapel and has an attached chaity
helping homeless people with housing, food and employment assistance.
I feel taxing the chapel and those elements not used for the later
should be taxed in fact I never applied for tax exeption for my
minstry and chapel. I did for the building the latter services are in.
After all a church building is to worship in and honor the faith, its
fitting those using it pay for the upkeep of that including all
relevant taxes there should be no special benefits. But I would argue
not for profit charity services since those can be secular in nature
and granted exeptions can claim equal rights to government tax
protections. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
RhymeCon
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 4:07 pm Post subject: Re: STAMP OUT SEPARATION - of church and state ***** |
|
|
On Aug 3, 6:44 pm, 4125 Dead <zepp22114...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 18:32:15 -0600, Nick...@Click.com wrote:
On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 16:34:29 -0700 (PDT), RhymeCon
b...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
On Aug 3, 8:42=A0am, Nick...@Click.com wrote:
On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 05:34:35 -0700 (PDT), RhymeCon
b...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
And he despises the
metaphor "Separation of Church State" not because he wants to see
government influencing religion but because he wants to see churches
having just as much right to influence government as every other
organization.
They can---but not at taxpayer expense
They are (for the most part), exempt from taxation.
THerefore, to use a =A0tax free status to advocate
for/against policy from the entity (government/people)
is prohibited.
Every individual belonging to any church can, in the
public venue, express themselves as any other citizen.
Want your church to enjoy that "same right"-----Then
give up tax free status.
Dear Nick,
I'm sorry but I believe you're mistaken. Churches are governed by the
same IRS rules as everybody else
No, they're not.
Indeed.
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:d1b8k190T4gJ:www.irs.gov/pub/irs....
--
What do you call a Republican with a conscience?
An ex-Republican.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827(From Yang, AthD (h.c)
"Prosperity and peace are in the balance," -- Putsch, not admitting that he's against both
Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,http://www.zeppscommentaries..com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
Zepps_News-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essays-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
Dear Dead,
In reply to "Not dead, in jail, or a slave?"
Well, for whatever it is that you've done to prevent my being dead, I
am eternally grateful.
As for "in jail," a hundred thousand American citizens did spend four
years in jail for the unspeakable crime of having the wrong ancestors:
Japanese. It was promoted by California's Attorney General (later to
become the ultra- liberal Chief Justice of the Earl Warren Supreme
Court), who needed to boost his political career by getting the Japs
out of California. And they were imprisoned by executive order of the
dean of the liberals, Franklin D. Roosevelt. (I'm sorry I can't say
there was violent opposition from the Conservatives but I can only
state facts).
As for "slave" it's interesting that the slave states were in the
south which was nicknamed for years afterward as the Solid South,"
meaning "solidly Democratic." And some churches opposed slavery, which
meant they were bad churches because they were violating the
"Constitutional Separation of Church and State." But most churches,
especially in the south, were good churches and supported it.
Rhymecon |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
RhymeCon
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 8:13 pm Post subject: Re: STAMP OUT SEPARATION - of church and state ***** |
|
|
On Aug 6, 9:07 am, RhymeCon <b...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Aug 3, 6:44 pm, 4125 Dead <zepp22114...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 18:32:15 -0600, Nick...@Click.com wrote:
On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 16:34:29 -0700 (PDT), RhymeCon
b...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
On Aug 3, 8:42=A0am, Nick...@Click.com wrote:
On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 05:34:35 -0700 (PDT), RhymeCon
b...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
And he despises the
metaphor "Separation of Church State" not because he wants to see
government influencing religion but because he wants to see churches
having just as much right to influence government as every other
organization.
They can---but not at taxpayer expense
They are (for the most part), exempt from taxation.
THerefore, to use a =A0tax free status to advocate
for/against policy from the entity (government/people)
is prohibited.
Every individual belonging to any church can, in the
public venue, express themselves as any other citizen.
Want your church to enjoy that "same right"-----Then
give up tax free status.
Dear Nick,
I'm sorry but I believe you're mistaken. Churches are governed by the
same IRS rules as everybody else
No, they're not.
Indeed.
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:d1b8k190T4gJ:www.irs.gov/pub/irs....
--
What do you call a Republican with a conscience?
An ex-Republican.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827(FromYang, AthD (h.c)
"Prosperity and peace are in the balance," -- Putsch, not admitting that he's against both
Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
Zepps_News-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essays-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Dear Dead,
In reply to "Not dead, in jail, or a slave?"
Well, for whatever it is that you've done to prevent my being dead, I
am eternally grateful.
As for "in jail," a hundred thousand American citizens did spend four
years in jail for the unspeakable crime of having the wrong ancestors:
Japanese. It was promoted by California's Attorney General (later to
become the ultra- liberal Chief Justice of the Earl Warren Supreme
Court), who needed to boost his political career by getting the Japs
out of California. And they were imprisoned by executive order of the
dean of the liberals, Franklin D. Roosevelt. (I'm sorry I can't say
there was violent opposition from the Conservatives but I can only
state facts).
As for "slave" it's interesting that the slave states were in the
south which was nicknamed for years afterward as the Solid South,"
meaning "solidly Democratic." And some churches opposed slavery, which
meant they were bad churches because they were violating the
"Constitutional Separation of Church and State." But most churches,
especially in the south, were good churches and supported it.
Rhymecon- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
Dear Cary Kittrell,
I'll resist the temptation to pick up my dictionary and write my own
definition: "metaphor: (noun) An approximately worded expression
giving a rough idea of something worth remembering."
Our brand new President Thomas Jefferson replied to a letter from a
group of Baptists, something about "Congratulations, Tom. But we're
getting the shaft from our state government. They have their own
established Denomination and it Ain't the Baptists. Please Help!" They
knew, and he knew, that the first ammendment prohibitted the feds but
not the stated from establishing religion, but just to show his heart
was in the right place he reminded them the American people, in
enacting the Constitution, had freed religion from Federal control be
erecting a "wall of separation between church and state," even though
it was a moot question regarding the state government.
Fast forward to 1947. The U.S. Supreme Court was hearing a case in
which a taxpayer named Everson complained that his county was giving
aid to Catholic schools by giving free transportation to and from
schools to ALL students. The 14th ammendment had now extended that
protection of religion from government to state governments as well.
Assoc. Justice Hugo Black wrote the majority opinion and he also wrote
a rule for all future cases, and he revived that old "Wall of
Separation" quote and said that Government could could not aid
religion with public funds, no exceptions. All jutices voted to
approve that rule.
Only one problem. The majority, including Hugo Black, voted to approve
the township spending public funds to help students get to Catholic
schools. Thus it appears that Hugo himself wasn't compleletely sold on
his own majority decision. And it appears that way for the Americans
United for Separation of Church and State, for AU's writer Rob Boston
wrote an article in AU's website listing the Everson decision being
one of several that AU wants to see overturned. I have it in my
website, headlined "AU agrees with Pat Robertson."
Thus "Separation of Church and State" can hardly be called a law or a
precise statement of a priciple. It's a metaphor.
As far as my needing help in basic website design I'm not a geek but
go ahead. I'm open to all constructive suggestions.
RhymeCon
http://rhymecon.tripod.com/2/ |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
ZerkonX
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 4:16 pm Post subject: Re: STAMP OUT SEPARATION - of church and state ***** |
|
|
On Wed, 06 Aug 2008 13:13:47 -0700, RhymeCon wrote:
| Quote: | Thus "Separation of Church and State" can hardly be called a law or a
precise statement of a priciple. It's a metaphor.
|
It seems to me "Separation of Church and State" is not metaphor, "wall"
on the other hand is. So a "wall of separation" is metaphorical but the
concept behind the metaphor, "Separation of Church and State", is not.
So, this is a precise statement of principle.
He is a fast running deer. A metaphor. "He runs fast" is not. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
RhymeCon
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 9:06 pm Post subject: Re: STAMP OUT SEPARATION - of church and state ***** |
|
|
On Aug 3, 5:34 am, RhymeCon <b...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Aug 1, 3:09 pm, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
On Aug 1, 8:36 am, Knuje <knujonmap...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Shall we make Pandeism the official state religion, then?
Nope. Pastafarianism. I plan to have a worship service tonight, with
a little Farfalle with vodka cream sauce and roast chicken.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
There is just plain something screwy about Google Groups. My computer
needed replacing, so it isn't the fault of my hardware. I joined this
group so I could reply to Buckeye's above post. I enter my comments.
But when I try to SEND them the program sends something else in my
name. His comment that I was trying to address reads
Quote:
RhymeCon, "the "Rhyming Conservative"
STAMP OUT SEPARATION - of church and statehttp://rhymecon.tripod.com/2/
A real 100% radical right (along the lines of Ken) nitcase
-End of Quote
I haven't a clue who Ken is but how does he reach his conclusions
about RhymeCon knowing zero about RhymeCon?
Now "RhymeCon" is a "radical right"? Sounds like he's been demoted by
an "R" since Buckeye used to call him an RRR, or Rolicking Religious
Rightist (known only by the psychic, Buckeye, who instictively can
tell at a distance whether someone is a fundamentlist theocrat - and
a LIAR too, by the way). Actually RhymeCon is not even close to a
fundamentalist, while although a regular church-goer he thinks of
himself as a seeker, not a teacher, and has a pretty strong feeling
that Christians who get to heaven might be surprised to find many non-
Christians there, with a few atheists included, people who served
Christ by showing compassion to "the least of these his
brethern." (Mat. 25)
And RhymeCon is not even close to a theocrat, either; He has NO desire
to see his church, or any religion, running the government, and
believes implicitly in the 1st amendment's non-establishment of
religion and also the freedom of religion. And he despises the
metaphor "Separation of Church State" not because he wants to see
government influencing religion but because he wants to see churches
having just as much right to influence government as every other
organization. That stupid metaphor would (if it were a law) work in
both directions (Assoc. Justice Hugo Black said so) while the 1st
amendment religion clauses clearly create a one-way street.
RhymeConhttp://rhymecon.tripod.comhttp://rhymecon.tripod.com/2/
- Show quoted text -
|
Dear Buckeye
I don’t think I’ve once been able to reply to one of your posts.
About my hardware: No, not a contradiction. I said my P.C. needed
replacing and I should have added that I had already replaced it. Mea
culpa.
And no, I didn't forget about having been a member of your website;
that's what convinces me you know absolutely nothing about me. You
repeatedly told me exactly what I think (in your opinion) yet you
missed it entirely. For example you told me repeatedly that James
Dobson was my hero; this was based entirley on my statement that
Americans United for Separation of Church and State had
mischaracterized a website by James & Shirley Dobson. When I said in
sarcasm that "You 'know' he's my hero." you said that proves it for
apparently anything the illustrious Buckeye knows HAS to be true
because Buckeye is incapable of error. You repeatedly stated I'm an
RRR although I know I'm not even close to them. That was based on my
refusal to bow down and worship your sacred mantra "Separation of
Church and State." It never occurred to you that it might be possible
for someone to believe as I do that Government must not influence
religion (that's in the 1st ammendment) but that religion has every
right to influence government (that's in the 1st ammendment too,
unless it's been changed to say "freedom of non-religious speech and
press only.")
And no, I didn't forget you booted me from your site, which was
certainly your right and I'm surprised you waited as long as you did.
But you had just challenged me to prove my statement that Assoc.
Justice Hugo Black had (as I recall - I don't have access to the
archive) voted to approve the spending of public funds to transport
kids to Catholic schools, and after I had prepared my reply the next
day (the link is on my website under "AU agrees with Pat Robertson)"
and tried to send it I found that you had removed me, this being the
most gutless thing I've seen anyone do.
And I have sincere respect for the research you've done into what our
founders said and wrote but when it comes to what people think today,
you've completely forgotten about your favorite catch-phrase "get the
facts."
RhymeCon
http://rhymecon.tripod.com/2/ |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
RhymeCon
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 7:06 pm Post subject: Re: STAMP OUT SEPARATION - of church and state ***** |
|
|
On Aug 7, 4:16 am, ZerkonX <Z...@X.net> wrote:
| Quote: | On Wed, 06 Aug 2008 13:13:47 -0700, RhymeCon wrote:
Thus "Separation of Church and State" can hardly be called a law or a
precise statement of a priciple. It's a metaphor.
It seems to me "Separation of Church and State" is not metaphor, "wall"
on the other hand is. So a "wall of separation" is metaphorical but the
concept behind the metaphor, "Separation of Church and State", is not.
So, this is a precise statement of principle.
He is a fast running deer. A metaphor. "He runs fast" is not.
|
Dear ZirconX
O.K., and thanks for the reply. But how precise a statement of
principle is it?
I’d think that the precise meaning of “Separation of Church and State”
would be that a church, or religion in general, must not attempt to
influence governmental action. But in our representative democracy
isn’t it everybody’s job to let our representatives know how we think,
especially if we think very strongly about it?
One hundred fifty years ago some churches opposed slavery. Were they
in violation of the law? Or at least the law that is defined by that
precise statement of principle?
And what about that group of criminals, the Quakers? They were the
only denomination that actively took the side of the American citizens
of Japanese descent whom the government was locking up in the most
outrageous civil rights offense (after slavery) ever committed by the
U.S. Government. Were they violating that same law?
And what law ever passed anywhere says that churches don’t have all
the rights guaranteed by law of every other organized group?
And what about the First Amendment? If “Separation of Church and
State” really is a precise statement of some law that tells churches
what they can’t do, wouldn’t the law be unconstitutional? After all
the non-establishment clause of the First Amendment begins “Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”
But wait! Suppose someone comes along and says “You’re wrong!
Separation of Church and State does NOT mean protecting Government
from Churches. It means protecting churches from governmental
interference. I’d agree with him 100%. Wouldn’t you?
From all of this I’d conclude that “Separation of Church and State”
is an ambiguous, confusing, impossible-to-define jumble of words. In
other words, a metaphor.
RhymeCon
http://rhymecon.tripod.com/2/ |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
ZerkonX
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 10, 2008 7:20 pm Post subject: Re: STAMP OUT SEPARATION - of church and state ***** |
|
|
On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 12:06:44 -0700, RhymeCon wrote:
| Quote: |
O.K., and thanks for the reply. But how precise a statement of principle
is it?
|
Kicking and screaming, I believe we must consider the historical context.
The church/state separation was a direct reaction to the European times
of divine right and State as church. So, the wisdom in this principle is
NOT the separation between The church and the state, per se, but between
the Churches themselves where one could (there is no such thing as 'A'
Church) lays claim to the state. The demand upon the state is one of
neutrality a sort of disinterested buffering agent.
This is a precise principle to me.
The great illusion is that there is some sort of religious homogeny
somewhere. There is not nor will there ever be if religion is to have any
personal relevance. Paine said, "My own mind is my own church". This can
be said by any member of any established Church.
The Church is really churches. Religion is actually, the religions. The
sense of unity is only afforded by the sense of being attacked or
confronted by something 'outside'.
Left to it's own devises 'A' church will sooner or later split over some
issue of some absolute truth. Absolute good (claimed by both sides) will
face off with absolute evil (each opposing side) causing an absolute
divide with the need for an absolute war. Say the founders, "been there,
done that, there's got to be a better way!"
| Quote: | I’d think that the precise meaning of “Separation of Church and State”
would be that a church, or religion in general, must not attempt to
influence governmental action.
|
With what I have said.. It is precisely the State not imposing religious
demands upon the people. It is a top -> down concern. What church does or
does not do to influence the state is not the issue, what the state
demands of the people is.
What exactly is meant by 'religious demands' is a living question.
For instance. Taxes are a demand by government. Taxes pay for the time
government employees spend doing government business. Should then
government employees be using any of this time in a formalized group
prayer ceremony where the function of an entire Constitutional branch
comes to a halt? Is the demand for tax then, in part, a demand of
religion?
| Quote: | And what about that group of criminals, the Quakers?..
|
Civic action concerning civic matters motivated by religious principles,
lawful or no, is not a demand placed by government. If the Quakers were
protesting that the federal government was not a "Quaker" federal
government, this would be another issue and is actually THE issue today
as it has been since the founding. If the Federal government were then to
appease the Quakers in their demands, this would be a problem as it is
today.
......
| Quote: |
From all of this I’d conclude that “Separation of Church and State” is
an ambiguous, confusing, impossible-to-define jumble of words. In other
words, a metaphor.
|
If this were true, then all law is a metaphor!
I do believe the church/state issue, today, is mostly false in nature.
The most apparent and visible opponents do not actually represent the
'sides' they claim. It is an issue dominate by exploiters of division,
free floating youth angst, intellectual huskers and the just plan weird.
To me, your case is well thought out and reasoned so do not think this
applies to you. In fact, maybe we can agree on this point. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
RhymeCon
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 6:56 pm Post subject: Re: STAMP OUT SEPARATION - of church and state ***** |
|
|
On Aug 10, 7:20 am, ZerkonX <Z...@X.net> wrote:
| Quote: | On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 12:06:44 -0700, RhymeCon wrote:
O.K., and thanks for the reply. But how precise a statement of principle
is it?
Kicking and screaming, I believe we must consider the historical context.
The church/state separation was a direct reaction to the European times
of divine right and State as church. So, the wisdom in this principle is
NOT the separation between The church and the state, per se, but between
the Churches themselves where one could (there is no such thing as 'A'
Church) lays claim to the state. The demand upon the state is one of
neutrality a sort of disinterested buffering agent.
This is a precise principle to me.
The great illusion is that there is some sort of religious homogeny
somewhere. There is not nor will there ever be if religion is to have any
personal relevance. Paine said, "My own mind is my own church". This can
be said by any member of any established Church.
The Church is really churches. Religion is actually, the religions. The
sense of unity is only afforded by the sense of being attacked or
confronted by something 'outside'.
Left to it's own devises 'A' church will sooner or later split over some
issue of some absolute truth. Absolute good (claimed by both sides) will
face off with absolute evil (each opposing side) causing an absolute
divide with the need for an absolute war. Say the founders, "been there,
done that, there's got to be a better way!"
I’d think that the precise meaning of “Separation of Church and State”
would be that a church, or religion in general, must not attempt to
influence governmental action.
With what I have said.. It is precisely the State not imposing religious
demands upon the people. It is a top -> down concern. What church does or
does not do to influence the state is not the issue, what the state
demands of the people is.
What exactly is meant by 'religious demands' is a living question.
For instance. Taxes are a demand by government. Taxes pay for the time
government employees spend doing government business. Should then
government employees be using any of this time in a formalized group
prayer ceremony where the function of an entire Constitutional branch
comes to a halt? Is the demand for tax then, in part, a demand of
religion?
And what about that group of criminals, the Quakers?..
Civic action concerning civic matters motivated by religious principles,
lawful or no, is not a demand placed by government. If the Quakers were
protesting that the federal government was not a "Quaker" federal
government, this would be another issue and is actually THE issue today
as it has been since the founding. If the Federal government were then to
appease the Quakers in their demands, this would be a problem as it is
today.
.....
From all of this I’d conclude that “Separation of Church and State” is
an ambiguous, confusing, impossible-to-define jumble of words. In other
words, a metaphor.
If this were true, then all law is a metaphor!
I do believe the church/state issue, today, is mostly false in nature.
The most apparent and visible opponents do not actually represent the
'sides' they claim. It is an issue dominate by exploiters of division,
free floating youth angst, intellectual huskers and the just plan weird.
To me, your case is well thought out and reasoned so do not think this
applies to you. In fact, maybe we can agree on this point.
|
Thank you. But when people stress the idea that "The church" is a
meaningless term in this country lets remember it was Jefferson's
term, adopted by Justice Black. It's too bad they didn't use the
constitutional "religion" or even say "churches." I apologise to
several for submitting that erroneous "URL". Apparently I had accessed
the Rob Boston aticle from my link on the "editable copy" of my
website and had C&P'd the address on that page which isn't the URL at
all. I haven't had time to reply to several of the above posts but not
because I haven't wanted too and I plead for your patience.
RhymeCon |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Matt
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 4:54 pm Post subject: Re: biblical/moral principles in Constitution. |
|
|
On Aug 29, 10:43 am, "Jack" <furgfurgf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | the Iroqois Condferacy also influenced the Constitution.!
really?
|
Yep.
http://www.iroquoisdemocracy.pdx.edu/
Matt |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
