No fish

To respectfully disagree with you, there is no
separation of church and state in the constitution. *That
was a creation of the supreme court in the 19 century.
Thomas Jefferson did make a remark about it in one of
his writing. *The constitution bars the establishment
of a state religion. *The supreme court even has a
copy of the ten commandments on the front of its
building.

The separation of church and state is founded in Constitutional law
and based, in part, on the first ammendment "Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof." So this goes much further than the "establisment
of a state religion."
And oh, by the way, look to the Flushing Remonstrance against Peter
Stuyvesant in 1657 (had to look it up, been a long time) as probably
the first call for separation of church and state in the colonies.
By the way, Jefferson made more than "a remark" about it. In 1779,
Jefferson wrote and instantiated into Virginia law (it became law in
1786) the "Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom" which says, in
part, "that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious
opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that
therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public
confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices
of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that
religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges
and advantages to which in common with his fellow-citizens he has a
natural right; that it tends only to corrupt the principles of that
religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of
worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and
conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not
withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the
bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his
powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or
propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a
dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty,
because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his
opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments
of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that
it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for
its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts
against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and
will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient
antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless
by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument
and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely
to contradict them."
Frank Reid

On Sep 14, 7:19*am, Frank Reid wrote:
To respectfully disagree with you, there is no
separation of church and state in the constitution. *That
was a creation of the supreme court in the 19 century.
Thomas Jefferson did make a remark about it in one of
his writing. *The constitution bars the establishment
of a state religion. *The supreme court even has a
copy of the ten commandments on the front of its
building.

And by the way, the Bill of Rights is (oh, this will shake you up, so
hold onto your seat) part of the Constitution.
Frank Reid
(just thought you ought to know)

On Sep 14, 5:19*am, Frank Reid wrote:
To respectfully disagree with you, there is no
separation of church and state in the constitution. *That
was a creation of the supreme court in the 19 century.
Thomas Jefferson did make a remark about it in one of
his writing. *The constitution bars the establishment
of a state religion. *The supreme court even has a
copy of the ten commandments on the front of its
building.

The separation of church and state is founded in Constitutional law
and based, in part, on the first ammendment "Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof." *So this goes much further than the "establisment
of a state religion."
And oh, by the way, look to the Flushing Remonstrance against Peter
Stuyvesant in 1657 (had to look it up, been a long time) as probably
the first call for separation of church and state in the colonies.
By the way, Jefferson made more than "a remark" about it. *In 1779,
Jefferson wrote and instantiated into Virginia law (it became law in
1786) the "Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom" which says, in
part, "that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious
opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that
therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public
confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices
of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that
religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges
and advantages to which in common with his fellow-citizens he has a
natural right; that it tends only to corrupt the principles of that
religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of
worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and
conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not
withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the
bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his
powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or
propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a
dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty,
because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his
opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments
of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that
it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for
its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts
against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and
will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient
antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless
by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument
and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely
to contradict them."
Frank Reid

Hear Hear.
And such is our true and hard won with blood, American tradition and
the founder's principles which PROTECT ALL RELIGIONS AND SECTS.
Religious wars were the curse of all the countries we all came from,
and even flared up in North America before the Revolution that freed
us from such devilish backwardness.
Thank you Frank
Dave

Frank Reid wrote:
To respectfully disagree with you, there is no
separation of church and state in the constitution. That
was a creation of the supreme court in the 19 century.
Thomas Jefferson did make a remark about it in one of
his writing. The constitution bars the establishment
of a state religion. The supreme court even has a
copy of the ten commandments on the front of its
building.

The separation of church and state is founded in Constitutional law
and based, in part, on the first ammendment "Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof." So this goes much further than the "establisment
of a state religion."
And oh, by the way, look to the Flushing Remonstrance against Peter
Stuyvesant in 1657 (had to look it up, been a long time) as probably
the first call for separation of church and state in the colonies.
By the way, Jefferson made more than "a remark" about it. In 1779,
Jefferson wrote and instantiated into Virginia law (it became law in
1786) the "Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom" which says, in
part, "that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious
opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that
therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public
confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices
of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that
religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges
and advantages to which in common with his fellow-citizens he has a
natural right; that it tends only to corrupt the principles of that
religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of
worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and
conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not
withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the
bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his
powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or
propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a
dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty,
because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his
opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments
of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that
it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for
its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts
against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and
will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient
antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless
by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument
and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely
to contradict them."
Frank Reid


Hi Frank,

I love Thomas Jefferson. Thank you for sharing.

What two of us did as vets was to defend the freedom
"of" religion, not freedom "from" religion. It is
a good thing that people bring their morality to government
and not check it at the door. That this irritates
others at times is unfortunate. No one is every going to
get elected on the platform for establishing
parts of their religion on every one else.

Would you not want to have your candidate
thumb through the ten commandments and
say, this one, not this one, not this one,
I like my mistress too much, this one,...?

It would give you a real good indication of how
he would react to situations and how he would
govern.

Just out of curiosity, do you follow the
reasoning of some that Thomas Jefferson's
words should be completely discounted because
he owned slaves?

-T

Inherint in freedom of religion is freedom from religion for those
that wish it. Reread Jefferson's words.
And, as with these stirring words and Jefferson's slave ownership,
context is important.
"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a
heartless world and the soul of soulless conditions."
Frank Reid

Todd wrote:
The separation of church and state is founded in Constitutional law
and based, in part, on the first ammendment "Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof." So this goes much further than the "establisment
of a state religion."
And oh, by the way, look to the Flushing Remonstrance against Peter
Stuyvesant in 1657 (had to look it up, been a long time) as probably
the first call for separation of church and state in the colonies.
By the way, Jefferson made more than "a remark" about it. In 1779,
Jefferson wrote and instantiated into Virginia law (it became law in
1786) the "Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom" which says, in
part, "that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious
opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that
therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public
confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices
of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that
religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges
and advantages to which in common with his fellow-citizens he has a
natural right; that it tends only to corrupt the principles of that
religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of
worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and
conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not
withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the
bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his
powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or
propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a
dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty,
because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his
opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments
of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that
it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for
its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts
against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and
will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient
antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless
by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument
and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely
to contradict them."
Frank Reid


Hi Frank,

I love Thomas Jefferson. Thank you for sharing.

What two of us did as vets was to defend the freedom
"of" religion, not freedom "from" religion.

Todd, you hit a hot button of mine. I respectfully disagree with you
-- and if it matters, I am a vet too (Vietnam, longer than the minimum
required time).

Disclaimer: the following is a logical comment, and should not be
construed as any indication of my own values, religious or otherwise.

Religious freedom means all religions (not just Christian faiths). It
also means that you are not hindered even if your preference is agnostic
or atheist.

The religious right assertion that the Founding Fathers had just the
Christian religion in mind just does not hold up when reading such
things as the Jefferson quote above. Not to mention common sense --
there were prominent Jewish men in the Revolution, and surely the
framers of our nation did not intend to exclude them.

Jefferson's phrase "our civil rights have no dependence on our religious
opinions" certainly seems clear enough to me.

It is
a good thing that people bring their morality to government
and not check it at the door.

A strong moral code is absolutely a good thing to insist on. My problem
is with those who insist on equating good moral character with a
professed belief in a Christian God. I was appalled at the questions
political candidates were asked in this past election about their
religious beliefs. While the questioners were within their rights (they
could also choose to vote only for people who think the sky is green, if
that floats their boat), insisting on a religious qualification for
political office is un-American and nothing I ever fought for.

Furthermore it does not even necessarily work -- the result is to favor
a hypocritical candidate who says what he knows the questioners want to
hear over a strongly moral one who has enough strength of character to
be honest about his beliefs. Kind of like why intelligence due to
torture is highly suspect.

There are devout, or at least professing, Christians who totally lack a
moral compass. There are atheists who have an enormously strong set of
moral values.

It is good to ask that a candidate bring a strong moral sense to
government; it is obnoxious to demand that the only way to demonstrate
that is to profess a belief in a Christian God.

That this irritates
others at times is unfortunate. No one is every going to
get elected on the platform for establishing
parts of their religion on every one else.

Unfortunately, you are clearly mistaken. They certainly are, and that
is exactly the problem.

There is no issue with non-controversial things, such as murder, theft,
etc -- everyone believes those are wrong, even without any religious
teaching. Legislating against them is just fine.

The problem comes when one person's religion believes strongly in
something that others, both religious and non-religious do not. There
is a terrible temptation to legislate what that person "knows to be
right". Not because his religion says so, but because it is "right"
(forgetting that his belief in its rightness comes from his religion).

One example is abortion -- many anti-abortion people say that they are
basing their conviction on their religion. They are perfectly happy to
legislate that particular religious belief, even though other strongly
moral people of a different (or no) religion disagree.

I realize that the abortion opponents believe they have the moral high
ground -- but many reasonable people disagree. When a "moral" issue is
that contentious, perhaps we should do some serious thinking before
legislating it, not just insist that my religion / God says it is wrong
so make a law against it.

In any case, regardless of your beliefs on abortion, anti-abortion
legislation is a clear example of attempting to legislate someone's
religious beliefs.

Would you not want to have your candidate
thumb through the ten commandments and
say, this one, not this one, not this one,
I like my mistress too much, this one,...?

It would give you a real good indication of how
he would react to situations and how he would
govern.

Just out of curiosity, do you follow the
reasoning of some that Thomas Jefferson's
words should be completely discounted because
he owned slaves?

-T

"Todd" wrote in message ...
Would you not want to have your candidate
thumb through the ten commandments and
say, this one, not this one, not this one,
I like my mistress too much, this one,...?

sort of akin to how Jefferson created his version of the Bible?
Tom