Democracy...

>>>Almost 60 percent of those polled said they thought Clinton was fit 
to be
>>>president. By what standard? That's the trouble. Americans have no
>>>standards -- no unchangeable yardsticks by which they measure right 
and
>>>wrong, truth from fiction.
>
>>By *their* standard, by their own personal judgement. There's no moral
>>yardstick, and God help us if there is in the future. Who makes the
>>yardstick? Who sits down and says, "This is the moral standard in this
>>country, abide by it or suffer the consequences"?
>
>Sorry but there are absolutes and there is a moral yardstick.  Whether 
this
> is accepted or not is beside the point.
>
>There has to be absolutes otherwise any action can be excused (or 
damned).
>  The real cry should be
>"God help us to instigate Your yardstick".  God doesn't change and 
neither
>does His measure.
>
>1)Love the Lord, with all your heart, with all you soul with all your 
mind
>and all your strength
>2)Love you neibour as yourself.
>
>Everything else hangs on these.
>
Ever heard of seperation of church and state? Democracy? the rights of 
the individual?  While you certainly have the right to practice your 
religion in what ever manner you so choose demanding that everyone else 
does, or that the president of the us of ais subject to you PERSONAL 
faith decisions is outragous

Vivek Vaidya

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

Vivek Vaidya wrote:
> Ever heard of seperation of church and state? Democracy? the rights of
> the individual?  While you certainly have the right to practice your
> religion in what ever manner you so choose demanding that everyone > else
> does, or that the president of the us of ais subject to you PERSONAL
> faith decisions is outragous
> 
> Vivek Vaidya
> 
Just look around the world to see what happens when those two get
together!

hey, would you care to show us where "seperation of church and state" is
to be found in the constitution/bill of rights?  absolute right and
wrong is not a religious belief (necessarily)..  your religious beliefs
do not affect the nature of reality.  there are absolute truths by
necessity...  see, there is NO WAY that there could not be.  Because if
there were no absolute truths, then that would mean that NOTHING is
absolute.  That statement in itself is an absolute.  now, as for
absolute truths regarding the president, there may or may not be any as
far as most people are concerned.  people always seem to make an
exception for people who agree with them...  in order to be an effective
president, however, one must uphold the very basis of this country, by
upholding the law.  Clinton perjured himself, obstructed justice, and
tampered with witnesses in a grand jury investigation (which was
incidentally <sp?> being conducted by a man who was praised just months
earlier as unbiased and very qualified for the job).  The man is
supposed to be the figurehead for our system of gov't.  If he cannot
follow the law, then he is not fit for the office.

Jaeger

> Ever heard of seperation of church and state? Democracy? the rights of
>
> the individual?  While you certainly have the right to practice your
> religion in what ever manner you so choose demanding that everyone
> else
> does, or that the president of the us of ais subject to you PERSONAL
> faith decisions is outragous
>
> Vivek Vaidya
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

Jaeger wrote:

> I reply to this message going point by point, within the original
> text...  so scroll down if you care to read what I wrote..
>
> > AI recently saw a posting about right v. wrong or good v. evil. These
> > are subjective terms as any good semanticist knows. But what is real
>
> Neither good nor evil is subjective to anything...  if something is
> absolutely evil, then there is nothing that will make it good...  (and
> vice versa <SP?>)
>

IYHO.  You've got to admire these great leaps of intuition. Now if we could
only harness them to constructive acts instead of coercive?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

And while we are on the subject, nothing gets to me quite so easily 
as self-styled educated men who cannot spell or form a grammatically 
correct sentence. You attempt to flame those whose logic is faulty 
and come off looking like ignorant boobs.

If you had done a little more reading in your past you would be able 
to recognize your own poor ability to communicate yet you rail on 
about the cluelessness of AOLers who haven't read the constitution. 
My question is how is it that you are able to read it?

I have pity for those who are products of the public school system 
but they have an excuse. What excuse do computer programmers have? 
They are forced to think logically yet so often refuse to do so in 
matters of real life. They often fall back upon the constitutionality 
of a particular concept yet haven't tested it with the power of their 
own sense of truth and justice.

Such is the substance of lawyers and politicians.

I recently saw a posting about right v. wrong or good v. evil. These 
are subjective terms as any good semanticist knows. But what is real 
and what is unreal is a much more difficult thing to determine. It 
requires rigorous thinking without prejudice or belief getting in the 
way.

As to law. The first of the Bill of Rights says:

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.

If you are going to quote something, do it fully and accurately. It 
isn't that hard and if you don't have a copy of the constitution 
laying around then either get one or keep your damn mouth shut until 
you know what you are talking about.

No, the words "seperation of church and state" do not appear but then 
neither does "privacy", but it is damn well implied by the 4th 
amendment. 

Those self-righteous pricks who want bible reading in the schools and 
rail against those who recite the 1st amendment either lack 
understanding of the term "reading" or are being dishonest by 
insisting that disallowing teachers to read the bible to students is 
wrong and that the constitution needs to be amended. Anyone with any 
honesty would realize that the first amendment doesn't prohibit bible 
reading by students or even bible study in a historical context. It 
merely prohibits tax-paid teachers from "respecting an establishment 
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". If I see 
just one more bible-thumping zealot message about "would you care to 
show us where "seperation of church and state" is to be found in the 
constitution/bill of rights?" I will be tempted to take him out in 
the parking lot and pound sand into the parts which are unaccustomed 
to this substance.

I am all for separation of school and state. Show me where in the 
constitution/bill of rights everyone is entitled to a theft/tax 
funded education. This would solve church and state in schools 
wouldn't it. If you don't like your kids getting a non-religious 
education from the godless state, you are free to pull them out and 
put them into a private school of your choice. But of course it isn't 
your kids you are worried about is it? It's all those other peoples 
kids that aren't getting the benefit of the word of the one true 
Christian god that you want to help isn't it!

Hypocrisy is the Vaseline(tm) of political intercourse!

Edwin E. Smith


At 08:39 PM 9/15/98 -0700, you wrote:
>At 7:27 PM -0700 9/15/98, Jaeger wrote:
>>hey, would you care to show us where "seperation of church and 
state" is
>>to be found in the constitution/bill of rights?  absolute right and
>
>Gee, check out the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Also 
the first
>item in the Bill of Rights. "Congress shall make no law respecting 
the
>establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise 
thereof..."
>(from memory, so don't bother me with minor wording corrections.)
>
>By standard convention, this is also referred to as "separation of 
church
>and state."
>
>As with the clueless AOLers yakking about an "Assimov" story they 
read a
>couple of years ago in the 5th grade, you bozos need to get educated 
and
>spend a minute or two thinking before writing.
>
>
>--Tim May
>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv

iQA/AwUBNf9K10mNf6b56PAtEQLRZwCeL9bBfYwsdjQ06iTNlSu/j1YGmn0AoMTy
2U/bC+Bpmp9BlqrRXNPv0eCS
=cdUv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

I reply to this message going point by point, within the original
text...  so scroll down if you care to read what I wrote..

> AI recently saw a posting about right v. wrong or good v. evil. These
> are subjective terms as any good semanticist knows. But what is real

Neither good nor evil is subjective to anything...  if something is
absolutely evil, then there is nothing that will make it good...  (and
vice versa <SP?>)

> and what is unreal is a much more difficult thing to determine. It
> requires rigorous thinking without prejudice or belief getting in the
> way.

> As to law. The first of the Bill of Rights says:
>
> 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.
>
> If you are going to quote something, do it fully and accurately. It
> isn't that hard and if you don't have a copy of the constitution
> laying around then either get one or keep your damn mouth shut until
> you know what you are talking about.
>

as to the above thing about quoting, I agree...

> No, the words "seperation of church and state" do not appear but then
> neither does "privacy", but it is damn well implied by the 4th
> amendment.
>

I disagree with the above...  I'll explain later

> Those self-righteous pricks who want bible reading in the schools and
>

speaking of invalid arguments...  might the above be an <gasp!> ad
hominem (abusive) attack ?!?

> rail against those who recite the 1st amendment either lack
> understanding of the term "reading" or are being dishonest by
>

ditto to my previous comment

> insisting that disallowing teachers to read the bible to students is
> wrong and that the constitution needs to be amended. Anyone with any
> honesty would realize that the first amendment doesn't prohibit bible
> reading by students or even bible study in a historical context. It
>

as for the teachers reading the Bible to their classes, I would agree
that that is a violation of the first amendment...  however, the Bible
is a useful teaching tool as far as understanding history, as much of
history is influenced by the Bible or parts of it (the crusades, the
inquisition, various countries' foundings/gov't systems, and, of course,
the United States' history).  Using the Bible in a historical context
passes the Lemon test (guidelines laid out by the USSC regarding gov't
attitude towards religion)

> merely prohibits tax-paid teachers from "respecting an establishment
> of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". If I see
> just one more bible-thumping zealot message about "would you care to
> show us where "seperation of church and state" is to be found in the
> constitution/bill of rights?" I will be tempted to take him out in
> the parking lot and pound sand into the parts which are unaccustomed
> to this substance.
>

okay, so this is a new kind of fallacy...  the appeal to a physical
threat as a means of winning an argument...  great...  you seem to be
very well rounded in making a variety of false arguments...

> I am all for separation of school and state. Show me where in the
> constitution/bill of rights everyone is entitled to a theft/tax
> funded education. This would solve church and state in schools
>

I defintiely agree with the above...

> wouldn't it. If you don't like your kids getting a non-religious
> education from the godless state, you are free to pull them out and
> put them into a private school of your choice. But of course it isn't
>

I was homeschooled for four years...(against my will)

> your kids you are worried about is it? It's all those other peoples
> kids that aren't getting the benefit of the word of the one true
> Christian god that you want to help isn't it!
>

no, actually it's more the insistence of the schools to present only the
humanist approach (which I consider a religion), rather than presenting
the facts as they are that bothers me...

> Hypocrisy is the Vaseline(tm) of political intercourse!
>
> Edwin E. Smith
>

how lovely....

Jaeger

At 7:27 PM -0700 9/15/98, Jaeger wrote:
>hey, would you care to show us where "seperation of church and state" is
>to be found in the constitution/bill of rights?  absolute right and

Gee, check out the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Also the first
item in the Bill of Rights. "Congress shall make no law respecting the
establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
(from memory, so don't bother me with minor wording corrections.)

By standard convention, this is also referred to as "separation of church
and state."

As with the clueless AOLers yakking about an "Assimov" story they read a
couple of years ago in the 5th grade, you bozos need to get educated and
spend a minute or two thinking before writing.


--Tim May

(This space left blank pending determ. of acceptability to the gov't.)
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Licensed Ontologist         | black markets, collapse of governments.

On Tue, 15 Sep 1998, Tim May wrote:

> 
> At 7:27 PM -0700 9/15/98, Jaeger wrote:
> >hey, would you care to show us where "seperation of church and state" is
> >to be found in the constitution/bill of rights?  absolute right and
> 
> Gee, check out the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Also the first
> item in the Bill of Rights. "Congress shall make no law respecting the
> establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
> (from memory, so don't bother me with minor wording corrections.)
> 
> By standard convention, this is also referred to as "separation of church
> and state."

Also check out the text of the Virginia law involving seperation of church
and state written by Thomas Jefferson.  (Should be required reading for
those who insist that the country is based on "Christian values".)  Any
good collection of the writings of Thomas Jefferson should have it. (My
copy was borrowed and never returned a few years ago... Argh!)

alan@ctrl-alt-del.com | Note to AOL users: for a quick shortcut to reply
Alan Olsen            | to my mail, just hit the ctrl, alt and del keys.

well, the first amendment is what I expected to be used...
unfortunately, the phrase "...wall of separation between church and
state" is not taken from the first amendment.  It is taken from a letter
written by Thomas Jefferson...  and the meaning is not that church
shouldn't have an effect on the state.  The state CAN support one
religion over another.  In context, the phrase simply explains that the
government can't make laws that RESTRICT religious practice or doctrinal
issues.  The state CAN make laws that encourage the practice of any one
particular religion, as long as the laws do not RESTRICT the PRACTICE of
other religions.  Making people uncomfortable isn't a constitutional
reason to overturn a law.

btw, notice the wording in the first amendment...it only restricts gov't
restrictions on religion.

Jaeger

> Gee, check out the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Also the
> first
> item in the Bill of Rights. "Congress shall make no law respecting the
>
> establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
>
> (from memory, so don't bother me with minor wording corrections.)
>
> By standard convention, this is also referred to as "separation of
> church
> and state."
>
> As with the clueless AOLers yakking about an "Assimov" story they read
> a
> couple of years ago in the 5th grade, you bozos need to get educated
> and
> spend a minute or two thinking before writing.
>

At 9:09 PM -0700 9/15/98, Jaeger wrote:
>well, the first amendment is what I expected to be used...
>unfortunately, the phrase "...wall of separation between church and
>state" is not taken from the first amendment.  It is taken from a letter
>written by Thomas Jefferson...  and the meaning is not that church
>shouldn't have an effect on the state.  The state CAN support one
>religion over another.

Ah, it's the appearance of a new ranter arguing for some bizarre,
idiosyncratic interpretation of the Bill of Rights and suchlike. Mr.
Jaeger, meet Mr. Choate.

Your notion that the state can support one religion over another so long as
it does not "restrict" the other will surely be news to the many who have
studied this issue for centuries. In particular, all those legal decisions
which got Christian manger scenes removed from public buildings, and which
got "Jesus Loves Sinners, Even Jews" removed from our coinage, will surely
now have to be reversed.

 > The state CAN make laws that encourage the practice of any one
>particular religion, as long as the laws do not RESTRICT the PRACTICE of
>other religions.


Bizarre. Try Ritalin. This has helped some list members cope.

--Tim May


(This space left blank pending determ. of acceptability to the gov't.)
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Licensed Ontologist         | black markets, collapse of governments.

Indeed. There are two types of freedoms at issue here: establishment and
free exercise, which the Framers thought were complementary and the
Supreme Court has said "occasionally overlap." There were three
ideological positions that drove the clause forward: those who wanted to
prevent corruption of the church, those who wanted to prevent corruption
of the state (such as Jefferson), and those who wanted to protect the
church from the state. 

I haven't come across documents written by the Founders or cases that say
the "state CAN support one religion over another." Cites, please? The cass
I'm familiar with suggest exactly the opposite. The Supremes believe in
"the established principle that the Government must pursue a course of
complete neutrality toward religion." Supporting one religion over another
violates the rule against "forbidden effects." 

As Tim said, our new friend's interpretation is somewhat bizarre.

-Declan


On Tue, 15 Sep 1998, Tim May wrote:

> At 9:09 PM -0700 9/15/98, Jaeger wrote:
> >well, the first amendment is what I expected to be used...
> >unfortunately, the phrase "...wall of separation between church and
> >state" is not taken from the first amendment.  It is taken from a letter
> >written by Thomas Jefferson...  and the meaning is not that church
> >shouldn't have an effect on the state.  The state CAN support one
> >religion over another.
> 
> Ah, it's the appearance of a new ranter arguing for some bizarre,
> idiosyncratic interpretation of the Bill of Rights and suchlike. Mr.
> Jaeger, meet Mr. Choate.
> 
> Your notion that the state can support one religion over another so long as
> it does not "restrict" the other will surely be news to the many who have
> studied this issue for centuries. In particular, all those legal decisions
> which got Christian manger scenes removed from public buildings, and which
> got "Jesus Loves Sinners, Even Jews" removed from our coinage, will surely
> now have to be reversed.
> 
>  > The state CAN make laws that encourage the practice of any one
> >particular religion, as long as the laws do not RESTRICT the PRACTICE of
> >other religions.
> 
> 
> Bizarre. Try Ritalin. This has helped some list members cope.
> 
> --Tim May
> 
> 
> (This space left blank pending determ. of acceptability to the gov't.)
> ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
> Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
> ComSec 3DES:   831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
> W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
> Licensed Ontologist         | black markets, collapse of governments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>