Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Politics
 Ignorance in the Senate...
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

the_ignored
SFN Addict

2557 Posts

Posted - 02/22/2004 :  02:39:39  Show Profile Send the_ignored a Private Message
This is a post from one of our favorite sites


Anyway, the person quoted Senator Zell Miller says:
quote:
"Everyone today seems to think that the U.S. Constitution expressly provides for separation of church and state. Ask any ten people if that?s not so. And I?ll bet you most of them will say ?Well, sure.? And some will point out, ?it?s in the First Amendment.?

?Wrong! Read it! It says, ?Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.? Where is the word ?separate?? Where are the words ?church? or ?state.?

?They are not there. Never have been. Never intended to be. Read the Congressional Records during that four-month period in 1789 when the amendment was being framed in Congress. Clearly their intent was to prohibit a single denomination in exclusion of all others, whether it was Anglican or Catholic or some other.

?I highly recommend a great book entitled Original Intent by David Barton. It really gets into how the actual members of Congress, who drafted the First Amendment, expected basic Biblical principles and values to be present throughout public life and society, not separate from it.

Here's the article the RR goof quoted from:
http://miller.senate.gov/press/2004/02-12-04decency.html

>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.

What brought that on? this. Original posting here.

Another example of this guy's lunacy here.

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25996 Posts

Posted - 02/22/2004 :  08:41:37   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
the_ignored quoted:
quote:
Clearly their intent was to prohibit a single denomination in exclusion of all others, whether it was Anglican or Catholic or some other.
"Some other" apparently not including Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Atheists, etc..

Miller also talks about the Constitutional Restoration Act of 2004. This act, S. 2082, reads in part:
`Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an element of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official personal capacity), by reason of that element's or officer's acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.'.
Clearly, the intent is to get Moore's big freakin' rock with the Ten Commandments put back in the courthouse.

There are other aspects of this bill which are as equally alarming. You can view the whole thing by going to Thomas, and typing "S. 2082" (without the quotes) into the "Bill Number" box, and hitting "Search." (Thomas doesn't allow direct links to the bills, by having the URLs expire after a while.)

Miller also support S. 1558, the Religious Liberties Restoration Act, which declares:
a) DISPLAY OF TEN COMMANDMENTS- The power to display the Ten Commandments on or within property owned or administered by the several States or political subdivisions of such States is among the powers reserved to the States, respectively.

(b) WORD 'GOD' IN PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE- The power to recite the Pledge of Allegiance on or within property owned or administered by the several States or political subdivisions of such States is among the powers reserved to the States, respectively. The Pledge of Allegiance shall be, 'I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and justice for all.'.

(c) MOTTO 'IN GOD WE TRUST'- The power to recite the national motto on or within property owned or administered by the several States or political subdivisions of such States is among the powers reserved to the States, respectively. The national motto shall be, 'In God we trust'.

(d) EXERCISE OF CONGRESSIONAL POWER TO EXCEPT- The subject matter of subsections (a), (b), and (c) are excepted from the jurisdiction of Federal courts inferior to the Supreme Court.
Miller also supports amending the Constitution with:
'Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State, nor State or Federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.'
I heard an interview with Representative Musgrave about this amendment, in which she claimed it was simply a statement which agreed with every major religion in the world. Since that intent, legislating religious ideals, is clearly prohibited by the First Amendment, I'm curious as to what would happen if it were to be ratified. How are two conflicting Amendments resolved by the courts?

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.58 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000